PPUC property: It'll be me or no one else!

When owned by the property manager, common-use private areas (PPUC) often allow the property manager to establish a power imbalance that is disadvantageous to the co-owners.

In managed residences, the terrace or garden is considered part of the common areas.

Private areas for common use (PPUC), or service areas, are one of the distinctive features of managed residences (whether they are tourist, business, senior, or long-term care residences…).

In a sense, they represent a hybrid category between private areas and common areas.

In reality, they are simply common areas “by nature” that have been “privatized”—for example, a lobby, a cafeteria, a broom closet, or a laundry room…

At first glance, it is difficult to understand the purpose of such a legal category. This is especially true given that several direct or indirect contradictions can be identified in the very name itself.

For example, if they are for common use, why classify them as private areas—which implies that the owner has the right to use them as they see fit, including the option not to designate them for common use?

“PPUC blackmail,” an often-effective means of pressure

Similarly, the fact that they are designated as common-use areas implies an obligation on the part of the owners to make them available to the community, which directly contradicts the right of ownership as we understand it (abusus, usus, fructus—that is, full ownership).

In short, from a strictly legal standpoint, the meaning of the concept is not entirely clear; in reality, this category resembles an aberration more than a brilliant innovation.

One must look more to practical application to understand the concept’s meaning and its value.

The concept emerged with the development of assisted living facilities, as the developers of these projects quickly realized that these common areas represented a significant challenge for the operator in several respects.

Among these challenges is, of course, the possibility for the operator who owns them to establish a power dynamic with the co-owners that is extremely favorable to the operator.

The operator can, in fact, engage in “PPUC blackmail,” which involves threatening the co-owners that they will no longer be allowed to use these facilities collectively unless they yield to the operator’s demands—which most often consist of a rent reduction.

This tactic is often effective because a residence deprived of a lobby, a cafeteria, or a swimming pool is, quite simply, often no longer viable.

Moreover, this is not the only adverse effect; for other examples, see our article on rent reviews, which are sometimes presented in a misleading manner by the operator: https://www.goetheavocats.fr/en/news/is-the-rent-adjustment-requested-by-the-property-manager-justified