The route to follow on arrears: reminder, formal notice, enforcement proceedings and the five per cent monthly late payment penalty.
Service charges are the only working source of income a development has. A handful of units not paying puts every line at risk at once, from lift maintenance to the security officer’s wages. That makes collection the management’s most critical — and most often deferred — task. The statute does not leave management to work it out alone; the route to follow is set.
Article 20 of the Condominium Law (Kat Mülkiyeti Kanunu No. 634) makes contributing to common expenses and advances an obligation of unit owners. The same article provides that an owner who is late in paying owes a late payment penalty calculated at five per cent per month for the days of delay. That rate arises from the statute itself; no separate resolution of the management is needed, and it arises together with the debt.
The first step is a written reminder. Most delays come not from bad faith but from forgetfulness or a cash squeeze. A one-page notice showing the amount owed, the months it relates to and the penalty accruing closes a significant share of files before they ever reach enforcement.
If payment is still not made, the process moves to formal notice. It matters that the notice is sent in writing and in a provable form; at the next stage you have to be able to show the debtor was informed. The notice should state plainly what the debt rests on — the operating budget and the general assembly resolution.
If payment still does not follow, enforcement proceedings are started. Proceedings are opened by the manager on a resolution of the management board, and the late payment penalty is added to the claim. Unit owners may also apply for the intervention of a judge under article 33 of the Condominium Law. Which route gives a faster result depends on the size of the debt and the debtor’s stance.
A frequent question is whether the debt can be demanded from the tenant. Article 22 of the statute holds a person enjoying continuous use of an independent unit under a tenancy agreement jointly and severally liable with the unit owner for common expenses and the late payment penalty. However, the tenant’s liability is limited to the amount of rent they are obliged to pay, and any payment they make is set off against the rent owed. In other words, management may approach the tenant as well, but for anything beyond the rent the unit owner remains the party answerable.
In practice, what actually makes this difficult is not the statute but disorder in the records. If it is unclear which month has been collected, if the operating budget was never properly served, or if general assembly resolutions are missing from the register, even a well-founded claim turns into a problem of proof. In every development we take over this is one of the first things we examine: whether the debtor ledger and the decision register agree with one another.
A practical suggestion: do not let collection become personal. When the same wording, the same timetable and the same threshold apply to everyone, the process stays impersonal and neighbourly relations survive it. Management’s job is not to ask people for money; it is to keep the shared budget standing.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. In any actual dispute, the provisions of your own management plan and the particulars of your case will govern; please consult a legal adviser.