Co-ownership charges: who pays what between tenant and landlord

Every quarter, a landlord receives a call for funds from the property manager (syndic) and wonders what can be re-invoiced to the tenant. Conversely, a tenant discovers at year end a service charge adjustment of several hundred euros and does not understand what he or she is really paying. This confusion stems from a common error: believing that the tenant bears the same costs as the co-owner (copropriétaire). That is wrong. The landlord pays all the charges to the syndic, but can recover from the tenant only a limited list of expenses, set by decree. This guide sets out the allocation of co-ownership (copropriété) charges between tenant and landlord, provides a clear table of recoverable charges, and describes the most common disputes and the remedies open to each party.

Two charging logics not to be confused

The first source of misunderstanding is the existence of two distinct legal relationships, governed by different texts.

The first relationship links the co-owner to the co-ownership association (syndicat des copropriétaires). It falls under Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965 establishing the status of co-ownership of built properties. The co-owner must pay all the building's charges according to the shares (tantièmes) set out in the co-ownership rules (règlement de copropriété). A distinction is drawn here between general charges (preservation, maintenance and administration of the common parts, allocated according to co-ownership shares under Article 10 of the 1965 Law) and special charges (collective services and shared equipment, allocated according to the objective utility these items have for each lot). A ground-floor co-owner may thus be exempted from lift charges if the rules so provide. The remedies open to a co-owner who challenges the allocation key applied are the subject of our article on challenging an unlawful allocation of co-ownership charges.

The second relationship links the landlord to the tenant. For a dwelling let as a main residence, it falls under Law No. 89-462 of 6 July 1989 aimed at improving landlord and tenant relations. Here, the principle is reversed and restrictive: the landlord advances all the charges to the syndic, then recovers from the tenant only the expenses classified as recoverable charges by Decree No. 87-713 of 26 August 1987.

Keeping this duality in mind is decisive. The question of co-ownership charges, tenant or landlord, is not resolved by looking at the syndic's call for funds, but by checking each line of expenditure against the regulatory list of recoverable charges.

The principle: the landlord advances, the tenant reimburses recoverable charges

Article 23 of the Law of 6 July 1989 sets the rule. The landlord pays all the co-ownership charges to the syndic. The landlord may then obtain from the tenant reimbursement of the so-called recoverable charges only, also called tenant's service charges.

The mechanism rests on three cumulative principles. First, the charge must appear in the exhaustive list in the 1987 Decree. Second, it must correspond to a service from which the tenant benefits (use of the dwelling, routine maintenance, consumption). Third, it must be supported by documents that the landlord keeps available.

In practice, a single co-ownership expense is often split into two portions. The remuneration of a caretaker offers the most telling illustration. The decree provides that this remuneration is recoverable up to 75% where the caretaker carries out both maintenance of the common parts and waste removal, but only up to 40% where the caretaker carries out only one of those two tasks. The remainder stays permanently with the landlord. Likewise, the syndic's fees are never recoverable, whereas water consumption or electricity for the common parts are.

This allocation of co-ownership charges between what may be re-invoiced and what may not is the heart of the subject. It explains why a tenant almost never reimburses the whole of the quarterly call for funds borne by his or her landlord.

Table of charges recoverable from the tenant

Decree No. 87-713 of 26 August 1987 organises recoverable charges under main headings. The table below gives a summary reading, distinguishing what falls on the tenant and what stays with the landlord within the same item.

This table calls for a general key to interpretation, regularly adopted by the courts: the tenant bears routine maintenance, minor repairs and consumption linked to use, while the landlord keeps everything that relates to investment, major maintenance and replacement of equipment. The line between "minor repair" and "major maintenance" accounts for a significant share of the litigation.

Charges that remain exclusively with the landlord

Certain expenses are never recoverable, whatever the wording of the lease. Any clause purporting to place these charges on the tenant of a dwelling would be deemed unwritten, the list in the 1987 Decree being a matter of public policy.

The following remain permanently with the landlord:

• the fees and management costs of the co-ownership syndic
• the building insurance premium taken out by the co-ownership association
• the property tax on built properties
• improvement, compliance and major maintenance works (facade restoration, roof renewal, replacement of a lift or boiler)
• the contribution to the works fund provided for by the 1965 Law, intended to finance future works on the building
• the costs of recovering charges unpaid by the other co-owners

The works fund deserves particular attention. This fund, built up by payments from the co-owner, serves to provision for future heavy expenditure. As it does not correspond to a service from which the tenant benefits during the year, it cannot be re-invoiced. A landlord who includes this line in the adjustment makes a common error that the tenant can have corrected.

Advances, annual adjustment and supporting documents

The practical operation rests on a system of advances followed by an adjustment.

Payment of advances

Each month, the landlord asks the tenant for an advance on charges, the amount of which must be justified by the co-ownership's forecast budget or by the previous year's results. This advance is not a freely fixed lump sum: an amount that is manifestly over- or under-estimated exposes the landlord to challenge. The tenant pays these advances together with the rent.

The mandatory adjustment

Article 23 of the 1989 Law requires an adjustment at least once a year. The landlord compares the total advances collected with the actual amount of recoverable charges shown in the co-ownership accounts approved by the general meeting. If the advances exceeded the actual charges, the landlord refunds the overpayment. In the opposite case, the landlord claims the balance.

One month before this adjustment, the landlord must give the tenant a statement by type of charge, together with the method of allocation among tenants where the building has several. For six months from the date this statement is sent, the tenant may consult the supporting documents, in particular the invoices and the statement of charges drawn up by the syndic.

The fixed charges sum

For a furnished dwelling, Article 25-10 of the 1989 Law authorises, as an alternative, a fixed sum for charges. Its amount, set in the lease, then gives rise to neither adjustment nor balance payment. This fixed sum must remain consistent with the charges actually borne; it cannot become a roundabout way of increasing the rent. The same option exists for shared tenancies (colocations) falling under Decree No. 2015-587 of 29 May 2015.

Common disputes and remedies

Charges account for a notable share of landlord and tenant litigation. Several situations recur regularly.

Landlord's failure to adjust

Some landlords collect advances for years without ever adjusting. The tenant may then demand the adjustment and, where applicable, repayment of the overpayment. Since the ALUR Law No. 2014-366 of 24 March 2014, Article 7-1 of the 1989 Law sets a three-year limitation period for actions relating to charges. A landlord who adjusts late can therefore claim only the arrears of the last three years. Symmetrically, a tenant who discovers an overpayment has the same period in which to seek its return.

Re-invoicing of non-recoverable charges

This is the most frequent dispute. The landlord includes in the adjustment syndic fees, a building insurance premium, property tax or a share of facade restoration works. By consulting the supporting documents, the tenant can isolate these lines and demand their removal. The tenant does not have to pay these amounts, even if the lease contains a contrary clause, which would be deemed unwritten.

Disputes over the line between minor repair and major maintenance

The characterisation of an expense is often debated. Replacing a seal or a light bulb is recoverable routine maintenance; complete renewal of an installation is non-recoverable major maintenance. In case of doubt, examination of the syndic's detailed invoices makes it possible to decide, each item having to be analysed according to its real nature and not according to its label.

Avenues of recourse

Before any proceedings, the departmental conciliation commission (commission départementale de conciliation, CDC), which has jurisdiction over service charges, may be approached free of charge. This attempt at conciliation has the advantage of speed and frequently avoids litigation. Failing agreement, the judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) of the place where the building is situated has jurisdiction over disputes between a landlord and a residential tenant. A prior attempt at amicable resolution is generally required for claims not exceeding the threshold set by the rules of civil procedure. The tenant may claim repayment of sums wrongly collected over three years; the landlord may pursue recovery of unpaid advances and balances within the same period.

The specific case of the commercial lease

Everything above concerns residential property. The commercial lease follows a radically different logic, and this distinction is essential for a landlord who lets both flats and business premises.

The commercial lease falls under Articles L. 145-1 et seq. of the French Commercial Code. Since Law No. 2014-626 of 18 June 2014, known as the Pinel Law, and its implementing decree, the allocation of charges is regulated but remains largely contractual. The lease must contain a precise inventory of categories of charges, taxes and works, indicating how they are allocated between landlord and tenant. Certain expenses cannot be placed on the commercial tenant, in particular the major repairs of Article 606 of the French Civil Code (main walls, vaults, renewal of roofs, retaining walls) and the management fees linked to those works. On the expenses that the tenant may or may not bear since the Pinel Law, see our table of allocation of charges under the commercial lease.

Unlike the residential lease, there is no exhaustive list of recoverable charges: the principle is freedom of contract, tempered by a core of expenses that the landlord must bear in all cases. The logic is therefore reversed: in residential letting, everything is non-recoverable except what the decree allows; in commercial letting, everything may in principle be transferred to the tenant except what the Pinel Law prohibits transferring. Given its scope, this subject will be covered in a dedicated article on the allocation of charges under the commercial lease.

Conclusion

The confusion between co-ownership charges and recoverable charges is the source of most disputes. The point of reference is simple and should guide each party: the landlord bears everything that relates to investment, ownership and management (syndic fees, building insurance, property tax, works fund, major maintenance), while the tenant reimburses only use, routine maintenance and consumption, within the strict limits of the 1987 Decree.

The position taken in this guide is clear: documentary rigour protects both parties. A landlord who adjusts every year, with a statement by type of charge, secures the tenancy and avoids the three-year limitation period. A tenant who exercises the right to consult the supporting documents immediately detects charges wrongly re-invoiced.

Before any adjustment, landlords and tenants alike have an interest in checking the syndic's statement line by line against the list in the 1987 Decree. If disagreement persists, the free referral to the departmental conciliation commission should precede any court action: it settles a large share of disputes without cost or procedural delay.

Frequently asked questions

Which co-ownership charges are recoverable from the tenant?

Only the charges listed in Decree No. 87-713 of 26 August 1987 are recoverable: water and heating consumption, electricity and maintenance of the common parts, routine maintenance of the lift, maintenance of green spaces, household waste collection tax, and a portion of the caretaker's remuneration (75% or 40% depending on the tasks performed). Everything that relates to investment or management stays with the landlord.

Can property tax be re-invoiced to the tenant of a dwelling?

No. Property tax is a tax on ownership and remains entirely with the landlord. Only the household waste collection tax, which appears on the same tax notice, is recoverable from the tenant. A lease clause placing property tax on a residential tenant would be deemed unwritten.

Can a landlord claim several years of charges at once?

The landlord may adjust arrears of charges, but the limitation period is three years since the ALUR Law of 24 March 2014 (Article 7-1 of the Law of 6 July 1989). The landlord can therefore claim only the charges due for the last three years. Beyond that, the claim is time-barred and the tenant may refuse to pay earlier sums.

Can the tenant consult the supporting documents for charges?

Yes. The landlord must attach to the annual adjustment a statement by type of charge, sent at least one month beforehand. For the six months following that dispatch, the tenant may consult the supporting documents, in particular the invoices and the statement of charges drawn up by the syndic. This right is the main tool for challenging a non-recoverable charge.

What should be done in case of disagreement over the adjustment of charges?

A written complaint must first be sent to the landlord, identifying precisely the disputed charges from the supporting documents. Failing agreement, the departmental conciliation commission may be approached free of charge. If the disagreement persists, the judicial court of the place of the building has jurisdiction, a prior attempt at amicable resolution being in principle required.

Are co-ownership charges recoverable in the same way under a commercial lease?

No, the logic is reversed. The residential lease allows recovery only of the charges exhaustively listed in the 1987 Decree, whereas the commercial lease, governed by Articles L. 145-1 et seq. of the French Commercial Code and regulated by the Pinel Law of 18 June 2014, allows a broad contractual transfer of charges to the tenant, except for the major repairs of Article 606 of the French Civil Code. A precise inventory of charges must appear in it.

Can the co-ownership works fund be charged to the tenant?

No. The contribution to the works fund provided for by the Law of 10 July 1965 serves to provision for future works on the building. As it corresponds to no service from which the tenant benefits during the year, it is not among the recoverable charges and remains exclusively with the landlord. Its inclusion in an adjustment is an error that the tenant can have corrected.