Incorrect or late defaulters’ data: is the administrator or the condominium responsible?

The obligation to communicate defaulters: a personal duty of the administrator

The Court of Cassation clarified that the obligation to communicate defaulters constitutes an autonomous duty, imposed directly by law on the person of the administrator. This is an obligation of collaboration towards the creditor, aimed at allowing him to take action against the actual debtors without involving, except in a residual way, the compliant condominium owners.

It follows that the administrator fulfills the obligations correctly only when he provides all the data necessary to identify the defaulters and their share of the debt. Incomplete or partial communication constitutes a breach. From this derives a principle of practical importance: the subject passively legitimized in actions aimed at obtaining communication of the data of defaulters is the administrator personally, and not the condominium represented by the administrator (Cass. n. 1002/2025).

Compensation for damages

It is understood that the delay in communication may cause prejudice to the creditor. The administrator’s inertia can in fact slow down execution, cause additional costs or lead to the loss of useful opportunities for debt recovery. In such cases, the creditor can request compensation, provided he can demonstrate that the omission or delay has had a concrete impact on the possibility of satisfying his right.
Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that even a defaulting condominium owner suffers damage due to the administrator’s fault. The fact that the debtor is late in payments does not deprive him of the right to diligent and correct management by the condominium body.

An error in communicating the sums due, a delay in updating the accounts or an inaccurate transmission of data to the creditor company can cause damage, as happened in the case recently examined by the Court of Naples. The controversy arose from the action brought by a condominium owner who complained that he had suffered a forced execution for an amount higher than that actually owed to the company responsible for the renovation of the building’s sewer system.

The condominium had entrusted the intervention to the contracting company, which, once the works were completed, acted as a monitor to obtain payment of the sums due. Since the condominium funds were insufficient, the company had initiated individual enforcement against the individual participants, including the plaintiff, based on the data provided by the administrator.

According to the plaintiff’s view, the administrator would have communicated to the creditor an incorrect amount, higher than the amount due, thus leading to forced execution for sums not actually due. Hence the request for compensation for financial and non-economic damages suffered, holding the condominium responsible for the actions of its administrator.

The condominium appeared, contesting the application in its entirety and claiming that the increase in debt was attributable not to an error by the administrator, but to the executive initiatives made necessary by the plaintiff’s non-compliance. The case was instituted on the basis of the documentation produced, without further evidence.

The central issue of the dispute emerged clearly: establishing whether the disputed conduct (the communication of the amount due to the contracting company) is attributable to the condominium or to the administrator himself. In this regard, the Court of Naples clarified that: when the disputed conduct concerns an activity that the administrator carries out in his personal sphere as agent (such as the transmission of the amount due to the creditor company) any damage cannot be attributed to the condominium, but exclusively to the administrator himself.

The Neapolitan judge in fact reiterated that these activities do not fall within the institutional responsibilities of the administrator towards the management body, but constitute acts of personal management, for which he is directly responsible to the condominiums or third parties. It follows that, if the delay or error in communication causes an aggravation of the debt exposure or an economic damage, the responsibility cannot be extended to the condominium, but falls solely on the administrator, as the material author of the conduct (Naples Court of 27 April 2026, n. 6764).