The natural enemy of insurance decisions is the calendar: the renewal date rarely coincides with the general meeting season, and getting the building together is not always simple. A written ballot offers a solution for exactly this situation – if the building's rules allow it. This article walks around the framework and the pitfalls of that option, strictly at a general level: the specific rules always come from the organisational and operational rules (SZMSZ) of the particular building.
- Whether a written ballot is available at all, and how it works, is typically governed by the SZMSZ – what it can be used for, and how, differs from building to building.
- Its advantage is flexibility (no meeting to organise), its risk is procedural error: a poorly documented written decision can be challenged.
- Typical uses in insurance matters: a switch tied to the renewal date, extending cover, a decision on indexation – when a meeting cannot be timed to fit.
When does it come in handy?
Three typical situations. The first is the renewal trap: the policy falls due in the autumn while the building meets in the spring – the written route can bridge the two, so the building does not have to wait a year to switch (on the deadlines: how switching works). The second is a quick, well-defined decision: extending a cover, for example, or accepting the indexation, where the material is simple and there is little appetite for debate. The third is a building that is hard to get moving: many owners, low turnout – more people can be reached in writing than at a meeting on a weekday evening.
What should the property manager watch out for?
The strength and the weakness of a written ballot are the same: it lives on paper. Good practice in general terms – always according to the specific rules of the SZMSZ – runs like this: the ballot paper should ask an unambiguous question (using the wording of the draft resolution), the materials – table, summary – should reach everyone together with the ballot paper, the deadline and the way of returning it should be clear, and establishing and announcing the result should be documented. Procedural precision is not a formality here: a flawed written decision can be contested afterwards, and it may fall together with the insurance deadlines.
What the written route cannot do
The absence of debate is not purely an advantage: where there is a genuine difference of view among the owners – on the level of cover or the premium burden, say – a meeting is the better format, because questions can be answered there live. A written ballot is the tool for well-prepared decisions that are already close to consensus; pushing divisive topics into writing typically does not speed the process up but sours it. Either way the preparation is the same: materials in advance, in plain language.
The insurance side: what do I add?
For a written ballot I put together the same pack as for a meeting: the table, the draft wording, a short summary – only adjusted to the format: shorter, with a clearer question. The procedural side – whether it complies with the building's house rules – is the territory of the property manager and, if needed, of the building's lawyer; in case of doubt their confirmation governs. The two together make for a safe and quick decision.
A question about your own building? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
