What to do if the meeting refuses to remove architectural barriers

The deadline to resolve and the value of silence

Law 13 of 1989 links the power to proceed independently to the expiry of a deadline from the written request addressed to the manager or the meeting, without the condominium having resolved, or to an express refusal. That is why the initial request must always be formalised in writing and kept: it is the act that starts the clock.

The refusal can be explicit, with a negative vote recorded in the minutes, or result from inertia: a meeting not convened, or convened but not resolving. In both cases it is essential to have documentary proof of the request and the outcome, because it will be the basis for acting at one's own expense and, if necessary, in court.

• Always formalise the request in writing and keep it
• Record the refusal or the meeting's inertia precisely
• The expiry of the deadline legitimises the individual's action

Which works the individual can carry out at their own expense

The power to act independently typically concerns works that ease access and mobility: ramps, stair lifts and lifting platforms, mobile and easily removable structures, as well as widening the access doors. These works affect the common parts but are considered by the law worthy of protection for their purpose.

The limit is twofold: the work must not impair the building's stability and safety, nor significantly alter its architectural decorum, and must not make common parts unusable for the use and enjoyment of other owners. Within these boundaries the individual's action is lawful even without the meeting's consent.

Who pays and how the completed work is used

If the work is carried out at the individual's expense, the cost stays with them. The other owners who did not contribute cannot oppose the execution within the limits of the law, but they do not automatically acquire the right to use it. The logic mirrors that of Article 1121 of the Italian Civil Code for burdensome or optional innovations: those who did not pay can join later, contributing pro rata to the construction and maintenance costs.

It is good practice to clarify from the outset, preferably at the meeting and in the minutes, that the work is borne by the interested party and on what conditions others may use it. This avoids future disputes over sharing the maintenance costs of the installation once it is in operation.

• The cost stays with whoever carries out the work
• Other owners can join by paying pro rata
• Clarify use and maintenance conditions in the minutes

Challenging the negative resolution: when it makes sense

If the refusal resolution is defective, for example approved with a wrong quorum or with an incomplete agenda, the absent or dissenting owner may challenge it before the court within the deadlines of Article 1137 of the Italian Civil Code. A challenge makes sense when the defect is concrete and provable, not as an automatic reaction to every unwelcome vote.

In many cases the faster route is not litigation but exercising the power to proceed at one's own expense, which allows accessibility to be obtained immediately without awaiting a judgment. The choice depends on the type of work, the costs and the technical feasibility of the independent action. Consulting a technician and a lawyer helps in deciding.

Documenting everything to protect yourself

Whether you choose to proceed at your own expense or to challenge, documentary proof is decisive: written request, notices, minutes, design and communications to the manager. Having an orderly record of every step is the best guarantee in case of dispute.

Management software like AmministraPro helps the manager keep requests, minutes and communications in a searchable archive, useful both for correctly handling the owner's position and for defending the condominium against possible actions. The available tools can be reviewed on the /funzioni and /prezzi pages.

Frequently asked questions