A member of the union council who calls informal meetings to impose their views, a president who sends threatening emails to reluctant co-owners, decisions made behind the scenes without a mandate from the general assembly: these situations exist in many condominiums. However, the union council has no executive power. Its role is limited to assisting and overseeing the property manager. When this limit is crossed, co-owners have concrete levers to restore balance.
Virtual assemblies and information filtering: a breeding ground for abuses
Since the establishment of general assemblies via videoconference or mail-in voting, a new phenomenon has emerged. Professional property managers report an increase in situations where the union council filters the information transmitted to co-owners or steers votes in advance.
Read also : How to Easily Calculate the Amount of RSA for a Single Person in 2024
In practice, this translates to biased agendas, supporting documents sent late, or exchanges via WhatsApp groups where only certain co-owners are included. Geographically distant co-owners, who vote by mail, find themselves dependent on the documents selected by the union council.
This type of abuse is harder to detect than an abuse committed during a physical general assembly, where everyone can speak up and request documents on the spot. When you notice an abuse of power by the union council of this nature, the first step is to demand by registered mail access to all management documents, a right guaranteed by the law of July 10, 1965.
Further reading : Comparison of Pampers Diapers for Newborns: How to Choose the Best Model?
Distinguishing legitimate control from exceeding mandate in condominiums
Have you ever noticed a member of the union council directly confronting a neighbor about a noise or parking issue? This reflex often stems from good intentions, but it constitutes an overreach of mandate.
The union council observes and alerts, but does not sanction. Only the property manager has the power to act legally on behalf of the co-ownership. When a council member sends formal notices themselves, imposes restrictions on access to common areas, or decides on works alone, they step outside their role.
Behaviors that constitute an abuse of power
- Engaging expenses or signing quotes without prior vote in the general assembly, even for modest amounts
- Exerting pressure on the property manager to refuse the inclusion of resolutions proposed by other co-owners in the agenda
- Using personal data of co-owners (email addresses, phone numbers) for communications unrelated to the current management of the building
- Preventing access to accounting documents or conditioning their consultation on procedures not provided for by law
The line is sometimes thin. An active union council negotiating a quote firmly with a service provider is helping the condominium. The same council that chooses a service provider alone without submitting the decision to a vote exceeds its authority.
Concrete remedies against an abusive union council
The response does not necessarily involve the court. Several steps can resolve the situation before it comes to that.
Request the inclusion of an item on the agenda of the general assembly
Any co-owner can ask the property manager to include a question on the agenda of the next general assembly. This request must be made by registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt. The property manager cannot refuse it if it complies with the condominium regulations.
You can thus propose the dismissal of one or more members of the union council. This dismissal is voted on by a simple majority under Article 25 of the 1965 law. If the majority is not reached but the proposal receives at least one-third of the votes, a second vote by simple majority can be organized immediately.
Dismiss the president of the union council
The president of the union council is elected by the members of the council themselves, not by the general assembly. To replace them, there are two options:
- Dismissing the entire union council in the general assembly, then electing a new one whose members will choose another president
- Asking the members of the union council to hold a new internal election, which requires their cooperation
In practice, the first option remains the most reliable when the president refuses to reconsider their position.
Appeal to the judicial court
The judicial route comes into play when internal remedies have failed. A co-owner can appeal to the judicial court to annul decisions made outside the legal framework or to hold a member of the union council personally liable for causing harm to the condominium.
In recent years, practitioners of condominium law have observed an increase in litigation directly targeting members of the union council, rather than just the property manager. Conferences organized by UNIS and FNAIM between 2022 and 2024 have documented this trend.
Personal liability of members of the union council
A rarely addressed point deserves attention. Members of the union council can have their personal civil liability engaged if they cause damage through their wrongful acts. Volunteering does not provide legal immunity.
A council member who takes the initiative to carry out works without authorization from the general assembly, and those works cause damage (infiltration, poor workmanship), may be held liable to repair the damage from their personal funds. This liability also applies in cases of interference in the private lives of co-owners, for example by disseminating personal information without consent.
To protect themselves, some condominiums take out insurance covering the liability of members of the union council. Check if your multi-risk building contract includes this coverage.
Always keep written evidence (emails, letters, screenshots of group conversations) remains the most protective reflex, whether you are an aggrieved co-owner or a council member acting in good faith. A well-documented file makes all the difference if the situation ends up in front of a judge or simply during a debate in the general assembly.