Legal challenges in ensuring regular maintenance and repairs of owner‐occupied apartment blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare different apartment ownership systems and analyze how to enhance the regular maintenance and repair of owner‐occupied apartment buildings. The dwellings themselves are often in fairly good condition, but the common parts (e.g. walls, roofs, stairwells, and technical installations) are often poorly maintained. Design/methodology/approach Apartment ownership systems in ten European countries (Austria, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) are analyzed, along with Canada, China, Russia, and the USA, and some of the main findings from each country are presented. The material studied is primary legal sources together with the relevant literature. Findings It seems that there are severe obstacles in the legislation of many countries. Some of these obstacles are: the non‐existence of a proper decision‐making body (e.g. homeowners' association); the wide use of a qualified majority, or even the use of consensus, which makes it difficult to reach decisions; serious difficulties in getting loan financing for major repairs because of a lack of collateral and means to enforce the collection of payments; a lack of transparency and insufficient auditing procedures. Overall, it can be concluded that there are great variations between different countries. At the same time, many legal solutions are similar across certain groups of countries. Social implications Weaknesses in the legislation is one of the main reasons for the continuous deterioration of an important part of the housing stock in many countries. If this deterioration continues, the quality of life of millions of occupants will gradually worsen. Originality/value The paper provides a theoretical well‐based analysis, combined with concrete suggestions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".