Legal challenges in ensuring regular maintenance and repairs of owner‐occupied apartment blocks

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare different apartment ownership systems and analyze how to enhance the regular maintenance and repair of owner‐occupied apartment buildings. The dwellings themselves are often in fairly good condition, but the common parts (e.g. walls, roofs, stairwells, and technical installations) are often poorly maintained. Design/methodology/approach Apartment ownership systems in ten European countries (Austria, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) are analyzed, along with Canada, China, Russia, and the USA, and some of the main findings from each country are presented. The material studied is primary legal sources together with the relevant literature. Findings It seems that there are severe obstacles in the legislation of many countries. Some of these obstacles are: the non‐existence of a proper decision‐making body (e.g. homeowners' association); the wide use of a qualified majority, or even the use of consensus, which makes it difficult to reach decisions; serious difficulties in getting loan financing for major repairs because of a lack of collateral and means to enforce the collection of payments; a lack of transparency and insufficient auditing procedures. Overall, it can be concluded that there are great variations between different countries. At the same time, many legal solutions are similar across certain groups of countries. Social implications Weaknesses in the legislation is one of the main reasons for the continuous deterioration of an important part of the housing stock in many countries. If this deterioration continues, the quality of life of millions of occupants will gradually worsen. Originality/value The paper provides a theoretical well‐based analysis, combined with concrete suggestions.