Which criterion to apply to a doubtful expense

First question: is there already a table or a clause?

The first check concerns the condominium regulation and the attached thousandth tables. If the regulation, especially a contractual one, sets a specific criterion for that expense, the condominium manager must follow it: the regulation's clauses prevail over the supplementary legal criteria, provided they are not contrary to mandatory rules.

Only where an express provision is missing do you move to the legal criteria. Many doubtful expenses actually have an answer hidden in a use table or a clause on allocation: reading the attachment carefully avoids needless reconstructions.

Second question: does the common thing serve everyone equally?

If the common part benefits everyone uniformly, the criterion is the general one of Article 1123 paragraph 1: allocation in proportion to the value of individual properties, meaning by thousandths. This covers the preservation and enjoyment costs of undivided common parts such as load-bearing walls, the roof or a concierge service that serves the whole building.

The thousandths criterion is the system's closing rule: when no other parameter is relevant, the expense reverts to the proportional value of ownership. Applying it by exclusion, after checking that differing use or partial service do not apply, is often the most robust choice.

Third question: is there differing use or a narrow group?

If the part serves everyone but with different intensity, paragraph 2 of Article 1123 applies and you split in proportion to use: this is the case of heating, metered water or systems used differently by the floors. If instead the part serves only some owners, paragraph 3 applies and the interested group pays.

For stairs and lifts the law provides the ready formula of Article 1124: half by thousandths and half by floor height. Watch for edge cases such as flat roofs in exclusive use, for which Article 1126 provides one third charged to the exclusive user and two thirds to the owners of the building or the covered part.

Edge cases: ordinary or extraordinary, and when the meeting decides

Some expenses are doubtful not on who pays but on how to classify them. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary affects the manager's powers, the majorities and, where a usufruct exists, who is liable. In general, recurring maintenance is ordinary and non-recurring work that affects the structure or renews significant parts is extraordinary.

The owners' meeting cannot overturn the legal allocation criteria by simple majority when the expense follows mandatory rules, but it may adopt different agreed criteria only unanimously or where the law allows. In case of genuine uncertainty it is prudent to have the adopted criterion and the reasons for the choice recorded in the minutes.

Giving traceability to the choice of criterion

A well-managed doubtful expense is one whose criterion is documented and repeatable. Keeping track of which article was applied and how the group was defined helps defend the allocation and maintain consistency in later financial years.

With software such as AmministraPro you can link each expense account to the correct table and criterion, so that every future entry inherits the already validated choice and the allocation stays consistent over time. The features are described on the /funzioni page and the plans on the /prezzi page.

Frequently asked questions