The co-ownership general meeting: notice, majorities, challenges

When and how is the meeting convened?

At least twenty-one days before the sitting, unless there is urgency or the co-ownership regulations set a longer period. That deadline is not indicative: failing it, even by a single day, voids the meeting. A decision taken in those conditions can therefore be undone, months later included.

It is a point to check yourself, postmark or acknowledgement of receipt in hand, rather than assume. We check it systematically when taking over a building, and not as a matter of principle: late notice is the commonest irregularity and the easiest to avoid.

The notice carries the agenda, the documents needed to vote, and for each question the applicable majority. That last point is valuable: it tells you in advance which decisions will turn on a handful of votes.

What is not on the agenda cannot be voted

The rule is clear and it protects those who are absent. Only questions on the agenda may be put to a vote. A question not listed may be raised and discussed during the meeting; it cannot give rise to a decision.

Hence the importance of having what matters listed, in advance and in writing. Every co-owner has that right, and the syndic cannot refuse a properly made request. A letter sent after the notices have gone out arrives too late for the sitting: it must be done well before.

A corollary often overlooked: a resolution voted on a question not listed is irregular. If the meeting gets carried away and decides on works nobody had been warned about, the decision can be challenged.

The four majorities, and the two fallbacks

Article 24 is counted on the votes cast by co-owners present, represented or having voted by post. It is the easiest majority to reach. It covers in particular works for the preservation and safety of the building, bringing it up to health standards, accessibility for disabled people, the energy performance certificate, and installing charging points or secure bicycle parking.

Article 25 is counted on the votes of all co-owners, present or not. It covers the forecast budget and the accounts, appointing and dismissing the syndic and the council, approving the multi-year works plan, and works outside article 24. It is a demanding majority, missed more often through absenteeism than through disagreement.

Article 26 requires a double majority: a majority of the members of the syndicate representing at least two thirds of the votes. It is reserved for decisions touching the structure or the purpose of the building. Beyond that again, certain acts require unanimity.

The two fallbacks exist so that a vote narrowly missed does not send everything into next year. Article 25-1 allows, where a proposal has gathered at least a third of the votes of all co-owners without reaching the article 25 majority, an immediate second vote at the article 24 majority. Article 26-1 plays the same role from the double majority down to article 25. In both cases the second vote is held in the same sitting: leaving the room after the first is giving up the second.

Proxies, postal votes, turnout

A proxy holder may not receive more than three delegations of vote. Two exceptions: where the total votes held, his own included, do not exceed ten per cent of the syndicate's votes, and where it is a secondary syndicate meeting to which all his principals belong.

Postal voting lets you weigh in without travelling, which matters in a building where many co-owners live elsewhere. It is done on a form, sent before the sitting.

Here is the most useful advice in this article, and there is nothing legal about it. On decisions taken by a majority of all co-owners, turnout decides as much as conviction. A council that has prepared a solid case and let the proxies slip loses on a point of organisation, not on the merits.

The minutes, and the two months to challenge

The minutes set out the questions on the agenda and the result of each vote, with the count, the names of those opposing and abstaining, and any reservations about the regularity of the sitting. Check your position as recorded there: it is what opens or closes your right to challenge.

Only opposing co-owners and defaulting ones, meaning absent and unrepresented, may challenge a decision. A co-owner who voted in favour, or who abstained, may not. Abstaining is therefore not a neutral position: it is giving up the right of challenge.

The period is two months from notification of the minutes. It is short, and it runs even if you discover the problem later. Reading the minutes as soon as they arrive is part of a co-owner's job, as much as paying the charges.