Legal Assistance for Ventilation Problems in Apartments

Questioner

Incorrect use of ventilation in an apartment building Our apartment complex consists of 28 apartments divided over 8 columns with 3 to 5 apartments each. There is mechanical ventilation with natural supply and mechanical exhaust. The exhaust is done in each column of apartments by a vertical pipe that ends on the roof. Per floor there is then 1 apartment connected to this pipe by means of a ventilation box, indicated below as VB. The construction drawings show in each apartment 3 valves that come out via horizontal channels on the VB, and further above the cooking area an opening, closed by a grille of your choice, that also comes out on the VB. The VB therefore extracts air via the 3 valves and the opening above the cooking area. The VB has sufficient capacity to guarantee that the valves, and the opening above the cooking area, have a maximum flow that meets the requirements set in the Building Decree. Now we sometimes have to deal with owners who place an extractor hood with a ventilation motor above the cooking area. The air is then blown from the cooking area to the VB, instead of being sucked in. This disrupts the balance, so that air is blown through a valve at the upstairs or downstairs neighbours. This air is contaminated with soot particles, so there is (serious) nuisance. The question now is what legal basis we have to address such owners. Our House Rules do not contain any provisions regarding ventilation. Our deed of division dates from 1998 and states that the Model Regulations from 1992 apply to us. These model regulations only state that the ventilation ducts are considered to be common items and areas. However, it seems to me that this refers to the vertical pipes and not the horizontal ducts that are located in each apartment. Online I did find some relevant provisions in the Housing Act and the Building Decree. According to the Housing Act, art. 1B, paragraph 2, it is prohibited to bring an existing building into a state that does not comply with the regulations applicable to that building. And according to the Building Decree, art. 3.37, paragraph 1, an existing building must have such a provision for ventilation that the development of a quality of indoor air that is detrimental to health is prevented. Is that sufficient, or are there more specific provisions or case law somewhere? Thank you in advance for your answer. Yours sincerely, Secretary of the VvE X

Lawyer

The 1992 model regulations state that the common areas and matters must be used according to their intended purpose (Article 11). It also states that the right of co-use of other owners and users may not be infringed. In my opinion, the nuisance you describe constitutes an infringement as intended here, which is already sufficient legal grounds to address the owners in question. In addition, in my opinion, there is a use that deviates from the intended purpose because the ducts are not technically suitable for connecting mechanical extractor hoods to them. The aforementioned article 11 of the Model Regulations 1992 also leaves room to lay down additional rules in the internal regulations. I advise the meeting to propose adding a provision to the internal regulations stating that the connection of mechanical extraction equipment to the channels in question is not permitted, and the provisions from the Housing Act and the Building Decree that you mentioned can be submitted to the meeting for information. In addition, on the basis of Article 10 of the model regulations, a provision can be added to the internal regulations regarding whether or not the horizontal ducts in the homes are common.

Questioner

Thank you very much!