Almost one in three jointly owned buildings are not registered, that is, they have not secured a final approval certificate, either because no relevant application was submitted to the Land Registry Department or because an application was submitted, but its examination is pending.
Of the 100 units (residences) located in the registered buildings, about 40 are also not registered, revealing the chaos that prevails in this sector, which the Provincial Local Government Organizations (EOA) undertake to cover.
Of course, the management of communal buildings entails costs and in order for the service to be set up for this purpose to operate, the EOAs estimate that an annual fee of €20 should be imposed on each unit owner (registered or not).
The communal buildings were monitored by the Land Registry Department, but in the context of the reform of the Local Government, it was considered that it would be more correct to entrust the management to the Local Authorities. However, the new Municipalities reacted and it was finally decided that the management should be taken over by the EOA, who accepted this role with a heavy heart and with a lot of tension. One of them concerned the cost of management/monitoring of the communal buildings and the study was prepared to capture the current situation in order to examine ways of sustainable operation of the EOAs.
According to data resulting from a study by the EOA, which was prepared in the context of the discussion of the bill concerning communal buildings (The Management of Communal Buildings and Related Issues Law of 2023) and submitted before the Parliamentary Committee on the Interior, there are 14,208 registered communal buildings throughout Cyprus while the non-registered ones are 6,711.
According to the study, in the 14,208 communally owned buildings there are 159,659 registered units, while in the 6,711 unregistered buildings there are another 59,976 unregistered residential units. In the study of the EOA, an estimate by the Land Registry Department is invoked, in which there is an assumption that 40% of the non-registered communal buildings meet the criteria for registration of management committees, so it is indirectly recognized that about 60% of the jointly owned buildings do not meet the criteria for registration of management committees.
Based on the study, there are 4,927 registered communal buildings in Nicosia, 898 in Famagusta, 2,299 in Larnaca, 3,232 in Limassol and 2,852 in Paphos. As for the 159,659 registered units (out of 14,208 jointly owned buildings), there are 53,553 in Nicosia, 9,895 in Famagusta, 26,213 in Larnaca, 38,329 in Limassol and 31,669 in Paphos.
Of the 6,711 unregistered communal buildings, 2,297 are located in Nicosia, 934 in Famagusta, 758 in Larnaca, 1,661 in Limassol and 1,061 in Paphos. Of the 59,976 unregistered jointly owned units, 19,688 are located in Nicosia, 9,371 in Famagusta, 6,685 in Larnaca, 14,167 in Limassol and 9,885 in Paphos.
The study states that based on the economic analysis and the data transmitted by the Land Registry Department, the annual fees are estimated to be €20 per unit. Taking into account that the units amount to 159,659, based on the proposed fee, the receipts will amount to €3,193,180 per year. However, based on and with experience in repaying other fees, EOAs would be satisfied if they collected 70% of the debts before taking action against the owners. It is noted that even in sewerage fees, the collection rate of fees is around 80%, so some less optimistic estimate that the collection rate for communal buildings is likely to be at a lower rate and in the best case to reach the level of sewerage collections.
Residents of communal building units, i.e. apartments or house complexes, should keep in mind that the €20 will be added to the common expenses they already pay (those who are consistent) as well as the amount that will be determined so that a management committee can operate. Those affected should also keep in mind that every month they will pay an additional amount for the creation of a common fund from which money will be drawn which will be used for any maintenance or repairs of the building or complex in which they live.
The numbers of the jointly owned buildings were obtained from the Land Registry Department.
The NGOs ask for order first and then powers
The study states that in order for the EOAs to undertake the supervision of the common-owned buildings, the following must also be implemented:
– Revision/removal of inapplicable responsibilities attributed to the NGOs.
– Explicit provision for effective mechanisms such as the cutting off of water or electricity through the EAC at the request of the relevant EOA.
– Adjustment of fees to cover the actual administrative costs and ensure the sustainability of the Organizations.
– Full coverage by the central state of the cost of the initial compilation of registers.
– Electronic and up-to-date delivery of a file of communal buildings by the Land Registry Department.
– Development and operation at a central level of a funded digital platform for the registration and supervision of Management Committees (D.E.).
– Setting a clear timetable for the transfer of responsibilities for at least 24 months.
In addition to the above, the EOAs, and in particular their presidents, consider that important decisions should be taken by the boards of directors of the Organizations and not by the director of development licensing (of each EOA), as is currently the case. The rationale behind the proposal is that responsibility and powers should not be concentrated in just one person. The study states that "given the breadth and importance of the issues that are regulated, it is considered appropriate that essential decisions are taken at a collective level to ensure institutional balance".
The EOAs also recommend that a fee be provided for the submission of a hierarchical appeal (against decisions of the Organizations by the owners) in order to avoid unnecessary or abusive burden on the administrative system and to ensure the rational operation of the process.
The study, and specifically in the chapter "Strategic Summary and Recommendations", also records the following findings which highlight from another point of view the chaos they have to face based on the data prevailing in the Land Registry.
– Does not include contact details of the owners.
– Contains outdated addresses.
– It may have inaccuracies (e.g. incorrect number of units).
– There are cases of units without registered owners.
As far as unregistered buildings are concerned, it is stated that there is an incomplete list, while a review of permit files (including physical files) is required to determine whether they fall under the legislation.
The position of the NGOs is that before the implementation of the legislation, a complete recording, updating of data as well as their digitization must be preceded.
