The tenant doesn't respect the co-ownership rules
Thierry, a landlord in Schaerbeek, recounts how his tenant accumulated co-ownership complaints: noise, parking, bins. Timeline and resolution.
- 01 The complaints
- 02 The escalation
- 03 The intervention
- 04 The resolution
- 05 Lessons learned
March 2025 — the first complaints
I own a 2-bedroom flat on the 3rd floor of a 12-unit building in Schaerbeek. My tenant, Yassine, 29, has been living there since September 2024 on a 3-6-9 residential lease. The first few months went smoothly.
In March I received a first email from the property manager. A complaint from a neighbour on the 2nd floor: loud music at 11 pm on a Saturday night. I assumed it was a one-off — it happens to everyone. I sent Yassine a text, he apologised, case closed.
But in April three new complaints arrived in quick succession:
- Parking: Yassine regularly parked his scooter in the bicycle storage, blocking access
- Bins: rubbish bags left in the 3rd-floor corridor instead of the communal bin area in the basement
- Noise: a party on a Thursday evening, music until 1 am
Seven complaints in 4 months. The property manager warned me: at the June general assembly, a fine of EUR 450 would be proposed against me if the situation was not normalised.
May 2025 — the escalation
On 2 May I called Yassine. The conversation was cordial but revealing: he had “not really read” the co-ownership rules. He did not know the bicycle storage was reserved for bicycles, nor that bins had to go to the basement. Regarding the noise, he admitted going too far but played it down: “It was only twice in 4 months.”
The problem is that I am the one in the property manager’s sights, not Yassine. Under Belgian law, the landlord is liable for their tenant’s behaviour vis-a-vis the co-ownership. If Yassine does not change, it is me who pays the fines.
Even if the lease contains a clause requiring compliance with the co-ownership rules, the property manager only knows the landlord. It is up to you to intervene, document your actions and prove that you have not remained passive. A landlord who does not react can be ordered to pay damages by the co-ownership.
May 2025 — the formal intervention
On 10 May I sent a formal notice by registered letter to Yassine. I detailed each incident, attached the property manager’s emails, and cited clause 8 of the lease requiring the tenant to comply with the co-ownership rules. I specified that any fine imposed by the co-ownership would be passed on to him.
On 25 May I organised a three-party meeting in the flat: Yassine, the chair of the co-ownership council and myself. The aim was not to gang up on him, but to create direct contact between the tenant and the co-ownership.
The meeting lasted 45 minutes. The chair explained the rules concretely: noise curfew (10 pm on weekdays, 11 pm on weekends), use of bicycle storage, waste sorting and collection days. Yassine realised the rules were reasonable and that he had been breaking them out of ignorance, not malice.
Putting the tenant in direct contact with a co-ownership representative defuses tensions. The tenant ceases to be an abstraction for the neighbours, and the rules cease to be a document nobody reads.
June 2025 — the resolution
Following the meeting, Yassine signed a written commitment on 4 points:
- Compliance with the noise curfew in the rules
- Scooter parked only in the designated area (underground car park)
- Bins taken to the basement on the designated days
- Any future breach would be considered grounds for lease termination
I forwarded this commitment to the property manager. At the June general assembly, the EUR 450 fine was removed from the agenda.
Factual summary: 6 weeks to resolution. EUR 0 in costs. EUR 450 fine avoided. Since June, no further complaints. The relationship with Yassine is intact — he even attended the neighbourhood party in September.
What I learned
Three practical lessons for any landlord in a co-ownership:
-
Annex the co-ownership rules to the lease and have them signed. Since this experience, I hand a printed copy of the rules to every new tenant at the signing of the lease agreement. I have them initial every page. The “I didn’t know” argument disappears.
-
Intervene from the very first complaint. My first mistake was downplaying the March incident. Had I sent a registered letter at that point, the April incidents would probably not have occurred.
-
Document every intervention for the property manager. Send the property manager a copy of every letter or email sent to the tenant. It proves your responsiveness and protects your position in the event of action by the co-ownership. A rental management software makes this follow-up easier.
Other real-life cases that may interest you: The landlord wants to install cameras in common areas and My tenant asks for a rent reduction: how to respond?.
- “**Hand over the co-ownership rules BEFORE the lease is signed.** In the Brussels Region, the landlord is required to inform the tenant of the building's rules. Have them sign the rules as an annex to the lease to eliminate any 'I didn't know' defence.
- “**React from the very first complaint by the property manager.** An ignored complaint leads to five more. Call the tenant immediately and confirm in writing. Proactivity shows the co-ownership that you take the matter seriously.
- “**Distinguish your liability from the tenant's.** The property manager contacts you as owner, but the nuisances are caused by the tenant. Document your interventions to prove you have not remained passive in the event of action by the co-ownership.
Week-by-week timeline
Frequently asked questions
-
Yes. Under Belgian law, the landlord is liable to the co-ownership for their tenant's behaviour. The property manager contacts the landlord, who must then intervene with the tenant. If the landlord does not react, the property manager can seek penalties against the landlord.
-
In principle no, because the tenant is not a party to the co-ownership rules. However, since the 2018 reform of the co-ownership law, the property manager can act directly against the tenant regarding common areas if the rules provide for it.
-
Yes, but only if the lease contains a clause requiring compliance with the co-ownership rules (which is standard) and the breaches are serious and repeated. The justice of the peace assesses on a case-by-case basis. Repeated noise disturbances despite formal notices can justify termination of the lease.
-
If the lease includes a clause requiring compliance with the co-ownership rules and the fine results from a breach by the tenant, the landlord can seek reimbursement from the tenant. Without such a clause, the situation is more difficult.
Manage all your leases in one tool
Lease generation, MyRent registration, payment tracking, digital inventory. 14-day free trial, no card required.