Legal assistance for VvE and parking space conflicts

Questioner

I bought an apartment. My property consists of the apartment and common areas such as a shared parking lot. The board of the VvE determines who may use which parking space exclusively. There are insufficient parking spaces for all residents. I speak of residents because almost 50% of the apartments are rented out. This concerns 3 large landlords and a few individual landlords. The 3 large landlords also have a seat on the board and therefore the allocation of parking spaces. There are even parking spaces that are not used for personal use. I believe that the entire parking lot should be usable by all residents (owners/tenants) and visitors on a first come, first served basis. I do not think it is the VvE's task (maintenance and insurance of common property) to allocate parking spaces, certainly not if there are insufficient parking spaces.

Lawyer

The VvE is the owner and can dispose of its property as such. Decision-making takes place by a majority of votes in the general members meeting of the VvE. This is the system of common ownership as in a VvE. If the general members meeting makes a decision that you believe is disadvantageous to you, you can request the court to annul the decision for that reason and, in exceptional circumstances, to make a replacement decision. Such a request to the court must be made within 30 days after the decision was made. Finally, it may be important what is arranged in the deed of division regarding the use and allocation of the parking spaces; that is also the information you could assume when purchasing the apartment right. The decision-making of the VvE may not conflict with the deed of division.

Questioner

I'm going to check the deed of division.

Questioner

Dear Marcel Cohen, The deed of division contains Article 9: 'The board of the association decides on the construction, use and maintenance of the gardens, roads and paths belonging to the building. It will not be permitted to plant tall trees in the gardens in such a way that the view and the entry of light and air through the windows and openings of the building would be obstructed.' In my opinion, there is nothing about allocating parts of the grounds belonging to the building to individual owners. In my opinion, no right is created for the board to grant exclusive rights of use of general parts to one of the members of the VvE. In my opinion, this exclusive right of use can only be granted to the acquired apartment. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the garages located on the grounds can be acquired in ownership on the understanding that the owner of a garage only receives a right of way to reach his garage. Secondly, I am of the opinion that at the time the VvE was established (the 1970s), the ownership density of cars was a lot lower than it is today. Ergo, the building was founded as a senior citizens' flat; in the 1970s, the number of senior citizens with a car was a lot lower than it is today.

Lawyer

If I understand correctly, no parking spaces have been purchased together with the apartment rights. The parking spaces are owned by the VvE (all members together). Because there are not enough parking spaces for all members, a choice must be made about what to do with the parking spaces. There are various options. The VvE can rent out parking spaces and for this the order of registration or by drawing lots the users can be designated. The parking spaces can also be sold to the members by auction. The proceeds will benefit the VvE (all members). Naturally, the choice of use of the parking spaces is exclusively the responsibility of the general meeting of members of the VvE. You cannot force a parking space to be sold to you or that you can use a parking lot. The members have to make a decision about that since nothing has been arranged about that in the deed of division. If one of the members (owners) represents a majority in the VvE, they can enforce a certain choice for the parking spaces. If that would be unfair to the other owners (VvE members), they can go to court for that.