Neighbour dispute in an apartment building: the steps that break the deadlock

A bike blocking the entrance hall. A washing machine running at midnight. A terrace turned into a workshop every Sunday. A co-owner who has voted against everything for two financial years. No neighbour dispute in an apartment building looks quite like the last one, and yet nearly all of them stall on the same mistake of method: people look for who is in the wrong before they look for which rule applies.

Here is our reading. A disagreement only becomes something you can deal with once it is tied to a text: the bylaws of the building, the house rules, a decision of the general meeting, or the general law. As long as it remains a matter between people, it goes nowhere, however many messages fly around the building's group chat. This page walks through the steps in the order in which they unlock the situation, for a building in Flanders or in Brussels.

Which rule is at stake, and where is it written?

Three documents govern life in the building, and they are not of the same kind. The bylaws, made up of the deed of division (basisakte / acte de base) and the co-ownership regulations, are drawn up by a notary and registered: they describe the units, the common parts and how service charges are split. The house rules (reglement van interne orde / ROI)GlossaryRules drawn up by private agreement that set out at least how the general meeting operates, how the syndic is appointed and the fortnight in which the ordinary general meeting is held. They are kept at the association's registered office and can be consulted free of charge. See the glossary are drawn up as a private deed and contain at least the rules on how the general meeting is convened, how it works and what powers it has, how the property manager (syndic) is appointed and the extent of their powers, and the annual fifteen-day period during which the ordinary general meeting is held (art. 3.85, § 3, Civil Code). Finally, the decisions of the general meeting are recorded in a register kept at the registered office of the association, and anyone with an interest may consult it there free of charge (art. 3.93, § 4).

Consulting it is your first step, before any letter. Many everyday rules are not in the notarial deed but in a decision voted eight years ago that nobody quotes any more. The details of each document are covered in deed of division and co-ownership regulations and in house rules.

That leaves the annoyances that no text covers. The justice of the peace then hears disputes which, according to the official description of the court's jurisdiction, concern "the use, enjoyment, maintenance, preservation or management of the common property in the case of co-ownership" (justice of the peace, Courts and Tribunals). The law on neighbourly relations also allows you to act against a nuisance that exceeds the measure of normal inconvenience, without proving any fault. Between an ordinary annoyance and a breach, the difference is not one of degree but of nature, and it changes the whole approach.

The syndic is not a referee, and that is good news

The syndic's task is precisely defined: to carry out, and have carried out, the decisions of the general meeting, to take all protective measures and all acts of interim management, and to give co-owners access to all non-private documents or information relating to the co-ownership (art. 3.89, § 5, 1°, 2° and 9°). None of these gives the syndic the power to decide between two co-owners. A syndic who refuses to take sides is therefore not failing in their duty, contrary to what many letters of complaint assume. Their obligations are set out in detail in role and duties of the syndic.

What the syndic can do, on the other hand, carries real weight. They date your report, remind the other party of the rule, gather the documents, put the item on the agenda and take legal action on behalf of the owners' association (VME/ACP). The association has standing to act, as claimant or defendant, to safeguard rights relating to the common parts or their management (art. 3.92, § 1). The syndic informs the co-owners without delay of any action brought by or against the association.

One point deserves to be known, because it saves months of waiting. You do not need a vote to defend your own unit.

The general meeting is where the conflict is settled, not just its backdrop

A recurring disagreement almost always ends up having to be decided by a vote. That route is open at any time: one or more co-owners, or the co-ownership council if there is one, can notify the syndic of the items they want put on the agenda of a general meeting (art. 3.87, § 4). Word the item as a decision to be taken, not as a complaint to be heard: "ban on parking bikes in the entrance hall and designation of a bike store" can be voted on, "recurring problem with unit 7" cannot.

If the ordinary general meeting is too far off, there is a second lever. Co-owners holding at least one fifth of the shares in the common parts send the syndic a request by registered post, and the syndic sends the notice of meeting to the co-owners within thirty days of receiving the request (art. 3.87, § 2). Note carefully what the text says: the thirty-day limit applies to sending the notice, not to holding the meeting. And if the syndic fails or wrongfully refuses to convene, any co-owner can ask the court to order the meeting to be convened within the time limit it sets, to deliberate on the proposal it determines (art. 3.92, § 4).

The majorities for each type of decision are explained in voting rules and majorities, and preparing the meeting in organising a general meeting. In a building where tensions keep coming back, the co-ownership council absorbs some of the friction before it reaches the meeting.

Conciliation or mediation: which should you choose?

Both avoid a trial, and they are not alike. ConciliationGlossaryFree procedure in which the justice of the peace tries to bring the parties to an agreement before or during proceedings. You request it with a simple letter to the court registry, and the agreement is recorded in a report that has the same force as a judgment. See the glossary is requested from the justice of the peace directly: you send a simple letter, or go to the court registry and ask orally for a conciliation hearing, and the procedure is free. If an agreement is reached, the record of it has the same value as a judgment and can be enforced by a bailiff (justice of the peace, Courts and Tribunals).

MediationGlossaryVoluntary method of resolving disputes in which a neutral third party helps the parties reach an agreement. You can choose a mediator accredited by the Federal Mediation Commission, and the agreement can be approved by the court so that it becomes enforceable. See the glossary takes place outside the court, in a confidential setting, with an accredited mediator whom the parties choose by mutual agreement. It can be started at the proposal of the parties or of the judge, nobody is obliged to take part, and the parties share the costs equally unless they agree otherwise. A full agreement can be approved by the court: it then has the same effects as a judgment and becomes enforceable (after mediation, FPS Justice).

Our position, in a small building: conciliation first, because it costs nothing, takes ten lines to request, and a summons from the justice of the peace is often enough to move a party who ignored the letters. Mediation takes over when the dispute is old, mixes several issues, and the parties will keep passing each other on the stairs for the next ten years.

When the deadlock comes from the majority itself

A conflict does not always pit two neighbours against each other. Sometimes a general meeting adopts a decision that harms a single co-owner, or stubbornly refuses works the building needs. Three levers exist, and their conditions differ.

An irregular, fraudulent or abusive decision that causes you personal harm can be annulled or amended by the court, provided you act within four months of the date of the meeting (art. 3.92, § 3). That deadline is short, and it runs even while you are still waiting for the minutes. The full procedure is described in challenging a GM decision.

When the required majority cannot be reached, any co-owner can obtain court authorisation to carry out alone, at the association's expense, urgent and necessary works affecting the common parts (art. 3.92, § 5). The same paragraph opens a second, much less known door.

“They may likewise obtain authorisation to carry out, at their own expense, works that are useful to them, even if they affect the common parts, where the general meeting opposes them without good reason.”

Art. 3.92, § 5, para. 2, Civil Code

The text adds a useful protection for anyone who dares to use it: once they have brought one of these actions, and provided the claim is not dismissed, the claimant is released from all liability for any damage that may result from the absence of a decision (art. 3.92, § 6). The rules for the building works themselves are covered in co-ownership building works.

The last lever is for buildings that are truly bogged down. If the financial balance of the co-ownership is seriously compromised, or if the association is unable to maintain the building or bring it into line with legal obligations, the syndic or co-owners holding at least one fifth of the shares in the common parts can ask the court to appoint one or more interim administratorsGlossaryPerson appointed by the court, at the request of the syndic or of co-owners holding at least one fifth of the shares, when the financial balance of the co-ownership is seriously compromised or the building can no longer be preserved. See the glossary, at the association's expense (art. 3.92, § 2). We advise against using it for a personal conflict: this mechanism answers a co-ownership that no longer works, not an unpleasant general meeting.

A trial settles the law, not the neighbourly relationship

Proceedings decide a legal question, and then everyone takes the lift together again. That is why we put conciliation before a summons, even when the case looks strong. In a building with fewer than ten units, court action over a one-off nuisance almost always leaves a relational cost greater than what is gained.

Two habits change how cases end, and neither costs money. The first is a log of incidents: one line per event, with the date, the time, what happened and who was there. A record kept over six months is worth more than ten pages of narrative written at the time of the complaint. The second is a single, calm letter to the other party, describing the facts, quoting the applicable provision and asking for one specific thing. It serves as evidence, and it settles some situations without any further step.

A clause in the bylaws cannot deprive you of access to a judge: any clause that gives one or more arbitrators the judicial power to settle disputes about the application of the co-ownership rules is deemed unwritten (art. 3.85, § 5). For what comes next, the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the documents to gather and the costs are explained in justice of the peace and co-ownership disputes. If the disagreement is about unpaid charges, that is a different mechanism, described in co-owner not paying. For the other situations in the life of the building, go back to the page on apartment building management.