The issue of the abolition of the function often causes friction between co-owners, which is accompanied by disagreement on how to vote, details Rafaële Rivais, a journalist in the "World" in his column.
Chronicle "SOS conso". January is traditionally the month in which co-owners offer gifts to their carer to thank them for their services – pick up their parcels or open the door of their apartment for employees of gas, electricity or heating in their absence. Some, however, regret not being able to do this anymore, because the position of caretaker … has been deleted.
It is mainly the older co-owners who appreciate the permanent presence of a guardian, given that it contributes to the security of the building. The youngest, on the other hand, prefer to do without and resort to external service providers to clean the common areas in order to save money; they also want to pick up the box to place strollers, bicycles or scooters.
The question of the abolition of the function, which arises mainly in small apartment buildings, therefore often causes friction, which is accompanied by disagreements about how to vote. The law of 10 July 1965 on co-ownership was silent on the subject, those who wanted to maintain the position of caretaker, have long benefited from favorable jurisprudence: a majority of the judges felt that, when the function of guardian was provided for the regulation of co-ownership, unanimous votes were needed to suppress it. They revoke resolutions that were satisfied by a qualified majority (majority of trade unionists represented at least two-thirds of the votes).
But the Boutin law, adopted on 25 March 2009, then the ALUR law, adopted on 24 March 2014, limited the requirements of this jurisprudence. They specify that a qualified majority is sufficient, provided that the abolition of the job has no consequences "At the destination of the building" (his status) or "The conditions for the enjoyment of the private portions" – otherwise unanimity is required. The judges think that the destination of the building or the pleasure of the units is not "Not reached" if the alternatives offered by the co-ownership offer benefits "Strictly equivalent" that proposed by the concierge service.