The Early Years: A Fragile Balance
When a building or housing project is constructed, the property management is often handled by the developer. This transitional period, intended to ensure service continuity until an independent manager is elected, sometimes becomes a source of conflict.
New residents often notice a lack of clarity in management: absence of communication regarding expenses, delays in maintaining common areas, or unilateral decisions made without consulting the co-owners.
In some cases, the developer retains complete control over the budget, maintenance contracts, and even the selection of service providers. The result: trust quickly erodes.
The Heart of the Matter: Transparency and Common Interest
Discrepancies often arise from a fundamental question: does the developer act as a temporary manager or as an interested party ?
? The dual role—salesperson of the properties and manager of the property—creates a gray area where commercial interests can conflict with those of the co-owners.
Buyers frequently complain about:
-
The absence of a clear accounting of common charges;
-
The lack of meeting minutes ;
-
Expenses considered excessive or unjustified (green spaces, security, cleaning, etc.);And sometimes, an
-
authoritative management, without consultation with residents.When Coexistence Turns to Distrust
In several residences, tensions escalate after the first year of occupancy:
owners discover poorly maintained equipment, deteriorating green spaces, or inflated budgets.
This situation fosters a sense of neglect and often drives residents to request the organization of a general assembly to
elect an independent managerBut even here, the handover is not always straightforward: the developer may delay providing financial documents or refuse to relinquish control over management..
Some even go so far as to
delay the creation of the first homeowner association,thus maintaining their control over the residence.The Moroccan Legal Framework
Dahir No. 1-02-176, promulgating Law 18-00 concerning the co-ownership of constructed buildings, clearly outlines the role of the property manager.
This law states that
co-owners must elect their manager at the first general meeting, but it does not always specify the procedures in case of delay or refusal by the developer.This ambiguity nurtures confusion: as long as co-owners do not organize collectively, the developer retains de facto management.
Towards Participatory Governance
To avoid conflicts, several developers today adopt a more collaborative approach:
Organizing
-
regular informational meetings with residents;Presenting
-
provisional budgets and financial reportsInvolving ;
-
co-owners in decisions regarding maintenance and security.For their part, buyers benefit from grouping together early on to
create a representative committee capable of engaging in dialogue with the developer and preparing the transition to an elected and transparent manager.Conclusion
The coexistence between the developer and buyers during the early years of a residence is a delicate stage.
The balance relies on
transparency, communication and the good faith of both parties.Without this, residences risk falling into lasting distrust, compromising not only the quality of life but also the property values...
.
