Collection fees in Colombian residential communities: can they be charged to delinquent owners?

Summary

Fees that a Colombian residential community agrees to pay a collection provider or attorney do not automatically become an obligation of the delinquent owner. Law 675 of 2001 authorizes the administrator to collect assessments, carry out collection efforts, and initiate legal collection in a timely manner, but it does not establish a general fee schedule or, by itself, authorize the community to pass every contracted cost on to the debtor.

A clear, pre-existing clause in the horizontal property bylaws, implemented through a duly approved receivables policy or manual, may strengthen the documentary basis for the charge. It does not guarantee enforceability. The authority of the body that made the decision, approval and registration formalities, information provided to owners, work actually performed, proportionality of the amount, and the circumstances of the case also matter.

Thresholds of 30, 60, or 90 days are operational choices made by each community, not deadlines imposed by Law 675. Likewise, percentages between 10% and 20% that appear in some private contracts are commercial references, not mandatory legal rates or percentages that can automatically be charged to a delinquent owner.

Legal notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Before creating, amending, or applying a clause that passes collection costs on to owners, seek advice from a Colombian attorney experienced in the horizontal property regime.

1. What does Law 675 allow, and what does it leave unregulated?

Law 675 allows communities to collect common expenses, accrue default interest, and pursue an enforcement proceeding. When analyzing outside collection fees, those powers must be distinguished from the specific obligation that the community seeks to add to an owner's account statement.

Article 29 requires owners to contribute to necessary common expenses in accordance with the horizontal property bylaws. Article 30 establishes the framework for default interest on late payment of those expenses. Neither provision automatically turns the price charged by a collection provider into an individual debt owed by the delinquent owner.

Article 51(8) authorizes the administrator to collect, directly or through representatives, ordinary and extraordinary assessments, fines, and other monetary obligations, and to initiate legal collection in a timely manner. That authority permits enforcement of existing obligations; it should not be understood as authority to unilaterally create a new charge.

Article 48 facilitates enforcement proceedings for fines or monetary obligations arising from ordinary and extraordinary common expenses, together with their interest. The certificate issued by the administrator has a special role as an enforceable instrument, but it does not, by itself, determine whether every fee added to the balance has a valid source and is enforceable.

Article 1629 of the Civil Code is also frequently invoked. It provides that expenses occasioned by payment are borne by the debtor, without prejudice to what the parties have agreed and to costs determined by the judge. That general rule does not establish a collection fee, does not by itself turn the provider contract into an obligation of the owner, and does not eliminate the need to establish the source, accrual, and enforceability of the charge.

The correct reference for the administrator's collection power is therefore Article 51(8), not Article 50.

2. Five concepts that should not be combined

Ordinary and extraordinary common expenses

These are the assessments approved to fund administration and common services. Their source, approval, allocation, and collection are governed by Law 675, the budget, and the community's bylaws.

Default interest

Default interest is the economic consequence of paying common expenses late. Article 30 sets a rate equivalent to one and a half times the certified current bank interest rate, unless the general assembly establishes a lower rate with the quorum required by the bylaws.

Interest does not compensate Certeza, a collection company, or an attorney. It must be calculated and recorded separately.

Out-of-court collection costs or fees

These are the price of activities performed before a lawsuit: cleansing and segmenting receivables data, communicating the obligation, documenting responses, following up on commitments, or supporting the identification, posting, and accounting reconciliation of payments, depending on the contracted scope.

The community contracts for the service. Passing that cost on to an owner is a separate legal question that is not resolved merely because the account is delinquent or because a data file was delivered to the provider.

Privately agreed attorney fees

These are the fees agreed between the residential community and the attorney or firm providing legal services. The contract determines what the community must pay its attorney; it does not automatically make the delinquent owner a party to that agreement.

Court costs and agencias en derecho

These arise within a court proceeding. Articles 365 and 366 of Colombia's General Code of Procedure govern their award and assessment. Agencias en derecho, or court-assessed legal fees, are set by the judge based on the work performed, the amount in dispute, and the fee schedules issued by the Superior Council of the Judiciary.

They do not arise during pre-legal collection, do not necessarily equal the amount paid to the attorney, and, before they are judicially assessed, must not be presented as an amount that has already accrued, been liquidated, or become enforceable.

3. The provider contract is not enough to charge the owner

The contract between the community and Certeza determines the scope of the service and who must pay Certeza. Passing that cost on to a delinquent owner requires analysis of a different relationship: the source of the obligation between the horizontal property entity and the owner.

Two court decisions illustrate why an automatic outcome should not be promised:

• In a 2022 appellate tutela decision, the Twenty-Seventh Civil Circuit Court of Bogotá upheld the ruling that ordered the community to refrain from charging certain pre-legal fees. In that case, the charge had neither been agreed nor authorized and was not included in the horizontal property bylaws.
• In 2023, the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cundinamarca declined to issue an order for payment of legal fees equal to 20%, even though the bylaws stated that collection expenses and attorney fees would be borne by the noncompliant owner. The Court found that the fee agreement was not binding on the defendant and noted the risk of duplicating the charge through agencias en derecho.

Those decisions resolved specific cases and do not make every future situation identical. The first concerned pre-legal work without support in the bylaws; the second concerned representation fees within a court proceeding. Taken together, they illustrate why neither the service contract, the administrator's certificate, nor an isolated bylaw clause supports a promise of automatic or guaranteed enforceability.

4. What role do the horizontal property bylaws play?

The bylaws are the governing instrument that sets out specific rights and obligations of the co-owners. If the community intends to establish an obligation involving outside collection costs, a clear, pre-existing clause reviewed by counsel provides a stronger basis than an informal decision by the administrator.

A generic formula such as “all costs will be borne by the delinquent owner” may be insufficient. The text should make it possible to identify:

• the type of work that may generate the charge;
• the event or stage from which it could accrue;
• the general rules governing its base and limits;
• who approves the provider and its scope;
• how the charge is disclosed and itemized;
• how partial payments, payment arrangements, errors, and payments in transit are handled;
• how the owner may dispute the charge.

Amending the bylaws requires the affirmative vote of 70% of all ownership coefficients comprising the building or community, under Article 46. Article 47 requires the meeting and its decisions to be documented in the minutes, and Article 51(9) directs the administrator to execute a public deed and register approved amendments.

Following those formalities strengthens the supporting record, but it does not replace review of the clause's substantive validity and enforceability in each case.

5. What can a receivables policy define?

A receivables policy or manual translates the community's decisions into operational rules. It may define:

1. The official source of balances, obligations, and payments.
2. The preventive, administrative, pre-legal out-of-court, and legal stages.
3. The days past due or other criteria that activate each stage.
4. The validations required before an account is assigned to a third party.
5. The activities that constitute real and documented outside collection work.
6. The calculation method, caps, taxes, and treatment of partial payments.
7. The people responsible for approving arrangements, corrections, and exceptions.
8. Advance disclosure and itemized presentation on the account statement.
9. The channel for submitting a complaint, providing a receipt, or disputing an amount.
10. The evidence that must be retained for each action.

The policy must not contradict or attempt to informally amend the bylaws. Nor should it expand an obligation beyond what the competent governing body approved.

The guide to creating a receivables policy for residential communities explains these operational elements in more detail.

6. Must outside collection begin after 30, 60, or 90 days?

Law 675 does not require a community to assign its receivables to a third party after any of those periods. Each community must choose a cycle compatible with its cash flow, budget, operational capacity, and risk level.

A process might begin with preventive reminders before the due date, continue with balance validation and payment reconciliation from the first day past due, and move to outside collection after the 30, 60, or 90 days defined in the policy. Cases that satisfy escalation criteria may later be delivered to an attorney to assess a court proceeding.

Those periods are examples, not statutory requirements. The policy should also specify the event that marks the actual start of outside work. Uploading a file to a system is not necessarily the same as carrying out a collection activity on a specific obligation.

To distinguish the stages correctly, see the guide to pre-legal collection for residential communities.

7. Is there a statutory fee between 10% and 20%?

No. Law 675 does not establish a general percentage for out-of-court collection of residential community assessments.

An analysis by Click Abogados states that some private contracts between communities and attorneys set fees between 10% and 20% of the amount recovered. That reference describes a contractual practice in certain legal services: it does not create a statutory rate, prove that the range is appropriate in every case, or authorize automatic pass-through to the delinquent owner.

Certeza's price and compensation structure may vary with the contract, scope, receivables portfolio, and agreed service. There is therefore no universal Certeza percentage.

If a community is considering a percentage-based arrangement, it should define at least:

• whether the base is principal, interest, the total balance, or the amount actually recovered;
• whether the calculation occurs before or after the payment is applied;
• the specific action that causes the cost to accrue;
• the cap and treatment of partial or direct payments;
• how an improper charge is corrected or reversed;
• how duplicate charges for the same work are prevented.

8. Are the Financial Superintendency's criteria relevant?

They are useful as prudent guidance, not as direct legal authority for every residential community.

Under the regime applicable to the entities it supervises, the Financial Superintendency of Colombia requires every expense passed on to a financial consumer to correspond to real collection activity, be supported, be reasonable and proportionate to the activity actually performed, and match amounts previously disclosed to the debtor. It also explains that it does not generally supervise companies engaged in collection activities.

Neither a residential community nor Certeza should be presented as subject to that regime merely because it manages receivables. Nevertheless, real work, supporting evidence, proportionality, advance disclosure, and traceability are sensible controls for a transparent policy.

The community must also assess the rules applicable to its contacts and processing of personal data. The guide What laws must you follow when collecting debts in Colombia in 2026? summarizes those controls.

9. A prudent process before applying a new clause

If the residential community does not yet have an express rule and wishes to consider outside collection costs, the recommended sequence is:

1. Review the current bylaws, meeting minutes, contracts, and existing accounting treatment of receivables.
2. Ask a horizontal property attorney to determine whether a bylaw amendment is appropriate and how it should be drafted.
3. Expressly separate out-of-court costs, privately agreed attorney fees, interest, and court costs.
4. Present the complete language and its economic impact to the general assembly.
5. Satisfy the majority and formalities applicable to the decision.
6. Implement the rule through a receivables policy approved by the competent governing body.
7. Disclose the policy before applying it and retain evidence of the communication.
8. Configure account statements to itemize principal, interest, out-of-court costs, and judicial amounts.
9. Accrue the cost only under the rule in force and against evidence of the corresponding work.
10. Establish a process to dispute, correct, or reverse the charge.
11. Periodically audit the calculation, supporting evidence, and absence of duplicate charges.

This process reduces the risk of arbitrary charges, but it does not replace legal advice on the clause or prevent its enforceability from being challenged.

10. How Certeza can help

Certeza helps carry out the out-of-court collection process defined by the residential community. It can centralize balances, segment receivables by age, coordinate contact sequences, record interactions, follow up on commitments, and support assessment reconciliation by unit.

That traceability helps distinguish a recently overdue obligation, a case actually managed by a third party, an active promise to pay, a partial payment awaiting reconciliation, and a file ready for legal review.

The residential community receivables solution does not replace the bylaws, the general assembly's decision, the accounting system, or review by counsel. Certeza also does not file lawsuits, seek attachments, or represent the community in court.

When a case must move to legal collection, the community delivers it to its attorney with the balance, history, and available supporting documents.

Checklist before recording a collection cost

• The community's attorney reviewed the source and wording of the obligation.
• The competent governing body approved the rule with the applicable majority.
• The minutes identify the approved text, ownership coefficients, and vote.
• Public deed and registration formalities were completed when applicable.
• The receivables policy implements the rule without expanding or contradicting the bylaws.
• The policy defines the day or event that activates outside collection.
• The calculation identifies the base, rate, taxes, caps, and treatment of partial payments.
• Real, identifiable, and documented work was performed.
• The owner received advance information and an itemized account statement.
• Principal, interest, out-of-court costs, and judicial amounts are recorded separately.
• A process exists to correct unapplied payments and improper charges.
• The community does not present privately agreed fees as court-awarded agencias en derecho.

Frequently asked questions

Can the administrator automatically charge a delinquent owner Certeza's fees?

Not merely because the community retained Certeza or because an account is delinquent. The administrator has collection powers, but the charge requires a valid source, approval by the competent body, clear rules, and supporting evidence. Its enforceability must be assessed by counsel.

Do the bylaws and receivables policy guarantee collection?

No. A clear bylaw clause and a consistent policy strengthen the documentary basis, but they do not guarantee that the charge is enforceable. An owner may challenge its source, approval, calculation, or application, and a court may review it.

Does Law 675 authorize a 10% or 20% charge?

No. The statute does not establish those percentages for out-of-court collection. They are references found in some private contracts, particularly attorney engagements, and must not be presented as statutory rates.

Must the account move to outside collection after 30, 60, or 90 days?

The law does not impose any of those periods. The community must define the threshold in its policy, justify it operationally, disclose it, and apply it consistently.

Are collection costs the same as default interest?

No. Interest is governed by Article 30 of Law 675. Collection costs are the price of a collection service and require a separate analysis.

Are attorney fees the same as agencias en derecho?

No. Attorney fees arise from the private contract between the community and its attorney. Agencias en derecho form part of court costs and are assessed by the judge under the General Code of Procedure and applicable fee schedules.

Does the administrator's certificate allow any charge to be included?

It should not be understood that way. Article 48 facilitates enforcement of certain obligations, but it does not automatically cure a charge that lacks a valid basis. A fee may be challenged based on its source, approval, calculation, or enforceability.

Does Certeza provide legal collection services?

No. Certeza supports preventive, administrative, and pre-legal out-of-court collection. It does not file lawsuits, seek attachments, or provide representation in court; those actions belong to the attorney retained by the community.

Sources consulted

• Law 675 of 2001, official text in SUIN-Juriscol.
• General Code of Procedure, Law 1564 of 2012.
• Civil Code, Article 1629.
• Tutela decision 2022-00085-01, Twenty-Seventh Civil Circuit Court of Bogotá, March 4, 2022.
• Order 25286-31-03-001-2022-00516-01, Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cundinamarca, November 14, 2023.
• Collection fees, Financial Superintendency of Colombia.
• Analysis of attorney fees in horizontal property enforcement proceedings, Click Abogados, used only as a private commercial reference.