Who pays for that repair in your building
The real argument is not «common or private»: it is «minor repair or necessary improvement». One and the same exclusive-use terrace gives different answers depending on where the cost came from, and three of the four are not paid by the same person.
Who pays in a shared building
Whoever has the exclusive use
Upkeep for wear from legitimate use and the passing of time is down to whoever enjoys it. The element is still common property: what changes is who uses it, and with that, who pays for what.
Ley 675 de 2001, art. 23, para. 3 and sub-para. 1
The element is still common property. Article 22 names terraces, roofs, internal courtyards and setbacks expressly as assignable for the exclusive use of the owner who, by where it sits, can enjoy them. What the assignment changes is not ownership: it is who uses it, and with that, who pays for what.
Resealing a joint degraded by the sun after years of normal use and rebuilding waterproofing that never had a fall look identical from the flat below, and different people pay for them. What settles that argument is a technical diagnosis, not the general meeting.
And if it has to go to a general meeting
The general rule is half plus one of the ownership shares represented at the meeting. These four decisions require 70 %, and they tend to come up in a reform:
- Amending the commonhold regulations.
- Releasing a non-essential common element from common ownership.
- Approving common charges that are not necessary, such as a voluntary improvement.
- Imposing extraordinary charges that, over the budget year, add up to more than four times the necessary monthly charges.
It is 70 % of the ownership shares that make up the building or development, not 70 % of those who turned up. And those decisions cannot be taken at a meeting held remotely, nor at a second-call meeting unless that same 70 % is reached.
No set of regulations can demand more than 70 %, except to wind up the commonhold. Higher majorities appearing in regulations are treated as not written.
Ley 675 de 2001, arts. 45 and 46
Where it comes from
What belongs to whom
Ley 675 de 2001, art. 3: essential common property includes, among others, façades and roofs or slabs serving as a roof at any level. And art. 22: terraces, roofs, internal courtyards and setbacks may be assigned for the exclusive use of the owner who, by where they sit, can enjoy them. They remain common property; what changes is who uses them.
And who pays for what
Ley 675 de 2001, art. 23, para. 3 and sub-para. 1. Deterioration through the fault of whoever has the exclusive use, and upkeep for wear from legitimate use, are down to that person. Necessary improvements that do not fit the above remain common charges. And damage the builder must answer for is answered for by the builder.
The majority
Ley 675 de 2001, art. 46: the qualified majority is seventy per cent of the ownership shares that make up the building or development, not of those who attended. It is a huge difference and it is counted wrongly all the time. Those decisions cannot be taken at a meeting held remotely.
And Ley 675 has not been reformed
«Ley 675 reformed 2025» is a widely shared false headline. It is worth keeping in mind before believing any summary going around.
What this tool does not claim
A tool that answers what its source does not say is worse than no tool at all. This is what is deliberately left unanswered here, and why.
- It does not decide whether your case is wear or a necessary improvement. That is the real argument, and it is settled neither by a general meeting nor by a form: it is settled by a technical diagnosis of where the damage came from.
- It does not replace your building’s own commonhold regulations, which may allocate costs in more detail. What the regulations cannot do is demand majorities above 70 %, except to wind up the commonhold: those are treated as not written.
- It does not say whether the builder is still liable. That depends on time limits, and is worked out in the other tool in this section.
- It does not cover non-essential common property or its release from common ownership, which have rules of their own.
- It does not work out ownership shares or how a charge is divided. It says who bears the cost, not how much falls to each unit.
It is cracking. It leaks. Something is wrong.
A technical inspection to establish what is happening and why, before spending on repairs that do not address the cause. You get the diagnosis in writing, with the remedies and the order to do them in.