Permit me to express a different opinion to that submitted by a contributor in the Letters to the Editor column of a local newspaper. I am referring to the letter entitled “Time to Reform the Condominium Law” in which a member of the legal profession recommended certain amendments to this Act, which, in my opinion, are not in the public interest nor for the “common good” but to enhance our learned lawyers’ financial business.

First and foremost, and contrary to what has been stated in said newspaper publication that “the promulgation of this legislations was a step in the right direction”, it should be pointed out that when the Condominium Act (ACT XXIX of 1997, as amended by Act XVI of 2001) was being debated in Parliament as proposed by the short lived Labour government (claimed to be the workers’ party), it was highly criticized by the opposition PN party. The MLP government claimed that the law was being enacted to harmonize relationships within condominiums even though laws and regulations were already in place to this effect. Instead, it created an unregulated bureaucratic monster that burdened workers living in such apartments with additional financial obligations, complications, and unjust increments of fees involved (e.g. administration fees rising tenfold in certain cases within a few years, and the introduction of work supervision fees even for shoddy work done). 

Although this law remained inactive for several years, it was surprisingly activated and implemented by the newly elected PN government with some minor changes in a clear reversal of argued reasoning, and under the assumed pretext that this was an EU entry prerequisite. Yet, the same law did not heed EU recommendations to regulate administrators’ fees for condominiums but relies instead on the so-called “democratic process” conducted during meetings of condominium owners’ association to affix or agree to such fees. However, it transpires that in condominiums where expatriate speculators are predominant (in several cases the so-called foreign resident/investor is just a speculator who derives additional income by renting the property being speculated), the Maltese worker owning such habitats has to compete with higher income expatriate owners. Moreover, in a hypothetical situation of three apartment owners in a block of three flats where two collude against one, the former two owners can appoint each other in turn as administrator and affix a tariff to their heart’s content to benefit them to the detriment of the third party.

This unregulated administrator’s fee completely ignores “Guidelines on Condominium Ownership of Housing For Countries in Transition” where in its recommended regulations it clearly states that “Item 1.  The municipality is obliged to: d (ii) Advise on acceptable tariffs to be charged by administrators for administrative functions for commonly owned parts of property” and “Item 6 − This fee cannot be higher than the maximum tariffs for administrative function published yearly by the local authority”.

The fact that this Maltese condominium law was based on the Italian Civil Code, as mentioned by the learned contributor’s writing, does not render it to be just or any better than other laws. The public is fully aware that Italian parliamentarians are immune from criminal prosecution for tax evasion and other more serious charges such as corruption of tax officials which would put any ordinary citizen behind bars for a long time in spite of the Italian judicial motto that “La giustizia e uguali per tutti” (justice is equal to all), and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU “Everyone is equal before the law”. It is also said that Italian law is based on the Justinian (Roman emperor) judicial process at a time when women where considered no better than slaves, including the wives of the Emperors in some cases. Taking advantage of the deficiencies of this condominium law, local legal firms have also formed companies to provide so called administrative services for condominiums whereby thanks to their legal acumen can make a good earning out of this fiasco.

The proof of the pudding of this abhorrent and inept law is that most condominiums owners have refrained from entering into the bureaucracy of registering their habitats (Condominium units/apartments), paying applicable registration fees, and engaging external administrators at a high cost. They have preferred instead to run their own affairs in a civilized and more effective manner rather than submit to a dictatorial communist type arrangement that renders no benefit to the community. Moreover, disputes that arise in certain condominiums are being referred to the Civil Courts rather than to the Condominium Tribunal (which has become integrated into the Arbitration Tribunal) as enacted in the Condominium Law thereby further proving that certain aggrieved citizens do not have faith in such an unjust law.

In their frustration of not having obtained enough business by taking advantage of the deficiencies of such law, lawyers are contending that “The law fails to provide the effects of the lack of appointment of the administrator” thereby implicating that such an appointment should be enforceable by law even in cases where no so called administrator is warranted. 

It is a disgrace that certain vultures are taking advantage of the deficiencies in our Condominium Law and making a profit out of the misfortune of Maltese workers who cannot afford to purchase and live in villas, or ordinary houses. The said contributor to the Letters to the Editor has ignored these basic necessities, but accented modifications in subject law that are to her/their advantage. Although she professed to be a member of the legal profession, she, however did not reveal that she is a director in such an administrative company. On the other hand, I happen to be the victim of this debacle.  

Raymond Sammut

MELLIEHA