Sharing of expenses relating to common parts between condomini is subject to the general principle that unless otherwise agreed to, expenses are to be shared in proportion to the value of the property of each condominus[1].  Normally, value is determined on the basis of a property’s square meterage, so that the bigger the property, the greater the value, and the higher the contribution towards the common parts.

The above seems to apply across the board with little thought given to the forgotten, or perhaps unknown principle, that cannot be derogated from, that where use of common parts is unequal between the various condominium units, expenses are to be paid in proportion to such use[2], and not according to value.

Unequal use can be the result of title or objective considerations.  Title refers to the deed of purchase which may expressly indicate the unequal use of common parts between the different units in the condominium; objective considerations are considerations based on the actual destination of a common part. 

Where a common part, from its inception, is destined for unidentical use between the various condomini, such as for example the different structural position of each unit in a block, use cannot be said to be equal between all.  By way of illustration, a staircase serves people at lower levels differently from those at higher levels[3].  Thus given the structural position of those at higher levels, who unarguably and therefore objectively, need a staircase more than those at lower levels, gives rise to unequal use between the various levels. 

Unequal use is not dependent on the actual use made of a common part.  Thus one cannot claim unequal use where one opts to use the staircase instead of the lift, as this is done out of choice and not as a result of one’s structural position in the condominium.  Thus, it is potential use and not actual use that needs to be taken into consideration in determining whether use, between all units in a condominium, is equal or otherwise.

On the basis of the above, lighting and cleaning of the staircase should not be partitioned according to value but according to use[4]; likewise lift maintenance and utilities incurred in connection therewith.  On the other hand, non use of an apartment does not exonerate its owner from paying its share[5] of condominium expenses; likewise where apartments are retained in shell form[6].

There is therefore, in every condominium, a percentage of condominium costs that relate to services that benefit condomini in unequal ways.  This being the case, should this not be factored in the yearly contribution each condomini is asked to pay, such that the contribution is not solely based on value, but also use?  This will result in a fairer distribution of costs with units at higher levels and bigger units carrying higher contributions.  Whilst owners who feel they are being made to pay more than they should have a right to seek legal redress, this is not conducive to good neighbourliness, and should be avoided by having condominiums regulate themselves accordingly from the start.