taken by a simple majority of owners. Maintenance includes repairs and replacement, cleaning
and day-to-day running of a tenement but does not cover alteration, demolition or
improvement.
2
Decisions about improvements must be unanimous (unless the title deeds
provide otherwise). A properly made decision under the TMS is legally binding on all owners
and enforceable through the courts. As disputes of this nature are essentially between private
individuals, the onus is on the individuals concerned to seek to resolve the matter themselves,
with recourse to the civil courts if necessary. There is not, for example, any government agency
or authority responsible for resolving disputes between homeowners regarding the management
and maintenance of common property.
4. HOW CAN PAYMENT FOR REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE BE
OBTAINED FROM AN UNCOOPERATIVE OWNER?
Where a decision has been taken requiring payment from owners relating to repair and
maintenance, either under the TMS or in accordance with the title deeds, and an uncooperative
owner(s) refuses to pay, there are several steps the other residents could. In the first instance,
it may be possible to find a remedy through informal discussions between the parties concerned
(perhaps employing an independent mediator). Secondly, one of the residents could write to
the owner(s) who is refusing to pay or, if necessary, engage a solicitor to do so on their behalf,
pointing out their legal obligations. Court action could subsequently be threatened unless
payment is made by a certain date and, as a last resort, and if payment is still not forthcoming,
court action could be taken. As with the decisions about the maintenance and management of
common property, in obtaining payment from uncooperative owners, the onus is on the
individuals concerned to seek to resolve the situation themselves. It should be noted, however,
that a court judgement in favour of the other resident(s) does not necessarily mean that an
uncooperative owner will pay. Further enforcement action involving, where necessary, sheriff
officers may be necessary in order to secure payment.
5. IS A PROPERTY FACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE DEBTS
OF NON-PAYING RESIDENT(S) FROM THE OTHER RESIDENTS?
Whether a factoring company is legally entitled to divide an outstanding bill of non-paying
resident(s) between the other owners will depend to a large extent on the relevant provisions
within the title deeds and/or any contractual arrangements in place between the parties. If, for
example, the title deeds provide that each property is liable for an equal share of any
maintenance costs, the factor cannot compel the owners to pay more (Scottish Law
Commission, Report on the Law of the Tenement, para 5.81).
Property managers should generally take all steps to pursue a defaulting owner but, in some
cases, it may not be possible to recover outstanding sums. In these circumstances it may be
appropriate that the other owners who have benefited from the repairs should meet the cost.
However, spreading the unpaid debt may only be possible if there is a contractual arrangement
in place, either through the title conditions or in the contract between the manager and the
owners, which allows for spreading of the debt. The common law position is that each
proprietor is severally liable for his or her own share of the repair and, unless the common law
position is altered by a contract, spreading the debt would not be enforceable by the property
manager.
There is, however, a different rule where the costs arise from a scheme decision under the
TMS. Rule 5 of the TMS provides that a property factor who has entered into an agreement
2
Section 69 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 amended the definition of “maintenance” to extend it to
“the installation of insulation”.