What to do if the manager does not respond

First step: a written formal notice requesting a reply

Before any formal action, it is worth sending a written formal notice, ideally by certified email or registered mail with return receipt, setting out the request in writing and a reasonable deadline for a response, typically ten to fifteen days. The notice serves two purposes: it prompts a concrete answer and, if silence continues, it becomes documentary evidence usable later before the assembly or a judge.

An effective notice must be specific, not generic: it should state the date and subject of earlier unanswered requests, the deadline for a reply, and the consequences the owner intends to pursue if silence continues, such as requesting a meeting or reporting the matter to the board of auditors where one exists. Attaching copies of previous communications is useful to show this is not an isolated first contact.

• Traceable delivery: certified email or registered mail with return receipt, never a plain email or messaging app
• Clear deadline for a reply, typically ten to fifteen days
• Reference to earlier unanswered requests, with dates
• Statement of the next steps if silence continues

Calling the assembly: a right that does not need the manager

If the manager stays silent, the law does not leave owners without tools. Article 66 of the implementing provisions of the Civil Code allows the assembly to be convened by owners representing at least one sixth of the building's value, regardless of the manager's willingness. This is the most direct route when the problem is blocked decisions, missing information, or a financial statement never presented.

The assembly can discuss and vote on concrete measures against an unresponsive manager, from a formal request for explanations to removal by resolution, if the majority considers it necessary. Removal by assembly resolution does not require proving serious irregularities as the judicial route does: the majority required by the bylaws or the law for the removal act is sufficient.

Judicial removal under article 1129 of the Civil Code

When neither the formal notice nor the assembly produces results, or when the manager has committed serious irregularities, article 1129 of the Civil Code allows any individual owner to apply directly to the court for removal. The provision lists typical grounds that justify the application: failure to open or use the dedicated building bank account, failure to communicate the required tax data, failure to convene the assembly for approval of the financial statement, or more generally serious mismanagement.

Applying to the court does not require going through the assembly first: it is an individual protection, available even to a single owner, precisely because the legislator wanted to protect anyone facing a manager who does not respond and blocks every internal channel of dialogue. It is still advisable to document earlier attempts, including the formal notice, since they strengthen the applicant's position before the judge.

The concrete protections available to each individual owner

Beyond removal, every owner has the right to access the building's accounting records and obtain copies at their own expense: a manager who systematically denies this access worsens their own position, both before the assembly and in any court application. Chronic delay in responding, if documented through a sequence of unanswered formal notices, also becomes supporting evidence for a removal request.

Digital management of correspondence and communications, such as the one offered by AmministraPro, helps build this documentation in an organized way: every request, every certified message, and every deadline stays tracked and searchable, which makes it easier to prove the manager's inertia when action is needed, whether before the assembly or in front of a judge.

Frequently asked questions