Luckily there are those who say no. The condominium reform proposal signed by Fratelli d’Italia does not convince the League, which highlights its limitations and critical issues. Northern League sources speak openly of a “bis reform of the condominium, as hypothesized by the proposed law 2692” which “presents obvious critical issues and is not shared”. A clear position, which draws attention to the concrete effects of the bill rather than to its declared intentions.
The bill – made up of 17 articles and presented by FdI deputy Elisabetta Gardini together with nine other parliamentarians – aims to rewrite the governance of condominiums. As is known, the objective is to overcome the management entrusted to the so-called condominium-administrators, the neighbors who coordinate the meetings and keep the accounts, introducing instead professional figures with stringent requirements and registration in a register at Mimit.
It is above all on the economic level that the League raises doubts. One of the most important innovations concerns relationships with suppliers: in the event of arrears, they should no longer have recourse exclusively on defaulting condominium owners, but could draw directly from the condominium current account and, secondly, also contact those who are up to date with payments. A modification that radically changes the current balance and which, according to critics, risks penalizing virtuous condominium owners.
The bill also introduces the obligation of graduate administrators and an auditor in condominiums with more than 20 owners. A choice motivated by the fact that “35 percent of civil litigation in Italy is represented by condominium disputes and, among these, appeals against accounts and proceedings for the forced collection of condominium contributions represent an increasingly significant part”. Data that justify the intervention, but which does not dispel doubts about the additional costs for citizens.
Another restriction concerns payments, which must be made exclusively to accounts in the condominium’s name: payments “are made to a specific current account, postal or bank, registered to the condominium itself”. And in the case of debts, the creditors “can act on the sums available in the condominium current account for the entire credit claimed and, in a subsidiary way, on the condominiums’ assets to the extent of each person’s arrears”.
On the safety front, article 3 requires that information on common parts be “verified and certified” by specialized companies. The administrator is automatically renewed from year to year, unless the assembly decides otherwise, while the auditor remains in office for two years.
The philosophy of the measure is explained in the introduction, which talks about the need to overcome the “now anachronistic figure of the condominium-administrator without any training, who can no longer guarantee the interests of the condominium and of the other subjects involved, much less the economic-social ones”. An approach that the League considers excessively rigid, especially for small condominiums.
The doubts, however, do not only come from politics. Anammi, an association of property managers, warns that the reform “would only make the activity even more expensive” without offering “realistic solutions to management problems”. President Giuseppe Bica underlines that “introducing even a second professional into the management of the common areas and the budget means increasing expenses for our condominium owners”, recalling that arrears have already increased by at least 20%. And he adds that “the very obligation to review financial statements represents a very heavy cost, which will be passed on to citizens and professionals”.
In summary, the League invites a more careful reflection on the practical effects of the reform, especially in terms of costs, responsibilities and repercussions on condominiums in good standing. A call for prudence that aims to correct the text before it becomes yet another regulatory intervention destined to complicate daily life. The question, as always, is simple: are we really making life easier for citizens or are we building another regulatory castle that will end up weighing – economically and bureaucratically – on those who live and pay regularly? While waiting for the answer, one thing is certain: this reform does not convince everyone. And perhaps not by chance.
TheVermilion.com is also on Whatsapp. Simply click here to subscribe to the channel and always be updated (free).