We have written previously about disputes within Owners’ Associations (VvE’s). Drawing on our extensive experience with flat ownership law and providing legal advice to Owners’ Associations, flat owners and property managers, we are this time discussing a recent ruling on two recurring issues: arrears in Owners’ Association contributions and installations fitted in communal areas without permission. An apartment owner who disagrees with the allocation of costs within a VvE cannot unilaterally decide to stop paying the VvE contributions. Nor does the fact that an air-conditioning unit has been tolerated for years automatically mean that permission has been granted for it. Anyone who replaces or extends installations in a communal area without the meeting’s authorisation runs the risk of having to remove them at a later date. This follows from a judgment of the District Court of North Holland dated 17 June 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:7053).

What were the facts of the case?

This case concerned a commercial unit in a block of flats that was subdivided in 1975. The building comprised 186 flat ownership rights, including three commercial units. The deed of subdivision set out, amongst other things, how the communal costs were to be apportioned amongst the flat owners. This was done using fractional shares.

The owner of one of these commercial premises became the owner of the flat ownership right on 30 August 2021. From the moment she acquired the flat ownership right, she ceased to pay advance contributions to the Owners’ Association.The reason for this was that she did not consider the cost allocation method used to be reasonable. In her view, the fractional shares were not based on the floor area of the flats and the chosen system led to an unfair distribution of service charges.

The reason for this was that she did not consider the cost allocation method used to be reasonable. In her view, the fractional shares were not based on the floor area of the flats and the chosen system led to an unfair distribution of service charges.

This matter had already been the subject of legal proceedings. Attempts by the owner to challenge resolutions of the General Meeting of Owners concerning the contributions and to have the deed of division amended had been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, a second dispute arose. There were already two outdoor units on the building. The owner replaced these with new units and also installed a third outdoor unit. No authorisation had been obtained from the General Meeting of Owners for this work.
The Owners’ Association subsequently claimed, amongst other things, payment of the outstanding contributions and the removal of all three outdoor units.

Positions of the parties

The Owners’ Association took the view that the owner was obliged to pay the contributions in accordance with the applicable deed of division and the resolutions of the General Meeting of Owners. According to the Owners’ Association, there was no scope to unilaterally reduce the payment obligation simply because the owner disagreed with the apportionment ratios applied. Furthermore, the earlier proceedings had not resulted in the annulment of the relevant resolutions or an amendment to the deed of division. The Owners’ Association also considered that the three outdoor units had been installed without permission. The deed of division stipulates that certain alterations to the building require prior authorisation from the General Meeting of Owners. Such authorisation had not been granted. The Owners’ Association therefore demanded the removal of the units and claimed a penalty payment to ensure that this obligation would actually be fulfilled.

The owner contested, in particular, the amount of the contributions due. She considered that the shares set out in the deed of division led to an unreasonable allocation of costs and argued that the contributions were therefore not payable in full. With regard to the outdoor units, she argued that the two original units had been in place on the building for many years without the Owners’ Association taking any action against them. In her view, she was therefore entitled to rely on the fact that replacement of these units was possible without separate authorisation. Regarding the third unit, she pointed out that she had submitted a request prior to the General Meeting of Owners. She argued that the Owners’ Association had not done enough to enable her to carry out the desired installation.

The court’s ruling

Firstly, the court ruled that the owner was obliged to pay the advance contributions set by the General Meeting of Owners. The owner acknowledged that, as an apartment owner, she was in principle liable to pay a contribution. Her objection centred on the method used to calculate the amount. The court did not accept the owner’s position.

According to the court, it was significant that the existing deed of division was still in force. Nor had the resolutions of the General Meeting of Owners, in which the budgets and advance contributions for the relevant years had been set, been annulled. Furthermore, previous proceedings in which the owner had raised precisely these issues had ended without the desired result. It was therefore established for the purposes of these proceedings that the existing arrangement formed the basis.

The court effectively emphasised that an owner cannot pre-empt a desired amendment to the deed of division. As long as that amendment has not been legally effected, the existing allocation formula remains in force. A new request to amend the deed of division did not alter this in the present case. The owner was therefore obliged to pay the advance contributions set by the General Meeting of Owners.

With regard to the outdoor units, the court stated that the deed of division stipulates that no superstructure, extension or substructure is permitted without the consent of the General Meeting of Owners. According to the court, this requirement applies not only to the installation

The owner could therefore not rely on the fact that the old units had been in place for many years. The fact that the owners’ association had not taken action against these units in the past was insufficient to assume that permission for replacement had been granted or that the owner was entitled to rely on such permission.

The mere fact that the owners’ association had not taken action against an existing situation for a prolonged period does not automatically mean that consent has been given for a new situation. The owner had failed to demonstrate to a reasonable standard that the owners’ association had in fact given the impression that replacement was permitted without prior approval.

As regards the third unit, the owner’s position was even weaker. The owner had sought permission at the General Meeting of Owners (ALV), but that permission had not been granted. The meeting had indicated that additional information was required first, including details on the structural implications and the technical specifications of the installation. The owner subsequently installed the third unit anyway.

According to the court, the General Meeting was reasonably entitled to request further information before granting permission. Furthermore, the owner was given the opportunity to resubmit her request to the General Meeting at a later date, accompanied by the necessary information. She had failed to do so. Consequently, the required permission was also lacking for the third unit.

The owner was therefore ordered to remove the three units within fourteen days and to ensure they remained removed. This obligation was subject to a penalty payment of €1,000 per day, up to a maximum of €100,000.

Conclusion

This case centred on two issues that regularly give rise to debate within owners’ associations: the allocation of communal costs and the installation of facilities in a block of flats. The court drew clear boundaries in this case.

An apartment owner cannot unilaterally decide that the owners’ association contributions are not due, or are only partially due, on the grounds that the allocation of costs is unreasonable. As long as the deed of division and the resolutions based on it remain legally valid, the obligations arising therefrom must be fulfilled.

Nor can an owner simply assume that a facility which has been in place for many years may be replaced or extended without permission. The deed of division remains the guiding principle for alterations to communal areas. Permission is required if the deed of division stipulates that such permission is necessary.

Would you like to know more, or do you have any questions about your rights as a flat owner? Please feel free to contact one of our lawyers. We’d be happy to help!