#NEWS

20/11/2018

Attachment and unpaid charges – Is it possible to transfer the management of the collection of receipts to a third party?

Article 18 of the law of 18 July 1965 specifies:
• The building management agent alone is responsible for its management, which includes, in particular, the recovery of expenses.
• They cannot be substituted to carry out their duties.

 

The building management agent may under no circumstances transfer their duties of recovering costs.

 

However, the syndicate of co-ownership has the possibility to subscribe through its building management agent to a Legal Protection insurance contract in order to protect the operating budget of the co-ownership.

 

Indeed, the Legal Protection insurer is not intended to replace the duties of the building management agent. This is why it is clearly stated that it is the responsibility of the building management agents to take the first steps, including the recovery of unpaid expenses. In the wording of the cover, at least one reminder letter and one registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt remaining unsuccessful must be made by the building management agent and failing that the cover is not given.

 

The Legal Protection insurer takes over in the event of non-recovery to prosecute the defaulting co-owner either by means of a final formal notice, which can be sent by the Company or by a lawyer with any procedural costs covered. These are the means used by the building management agent to collect the debt, the collection of which they continue to monitor. There is therefore no difficulty with regard to the building management agent’s legal obligations, nor is there any assignment of receivables.

 

Nor is there any assignment of receivables in connection with the implementation of the guarantee for payment of expenses included in the Coprozen product distributed by Verlingue Immobilier. Indeed, the insurer pays the amount of the unpaid claim to the co-ownership and under the subrogation clause in the general conditions, as for damage contracts, it pursues the debtor to obtain settlement. It is therefore simply a subrogation mechanism. There are therefore no legal difficulties here either.