

Can a developer demand maintenance fees before delivering an apartment in Turkey? Learn when foreign property buyers may object to site fees, management charges and pre-delivery expenses.
Foreign buyers purchasing apartments in residential projects in Turkey may face an unexpected demand before receiving possession of the property: the developer, project management company or site management requests payment of maintenance fees, common expenses or management charges even though the apartment has not yet been physically delivered. In some cases, the buyer has never received the keys, cannot use the apartment and may still be waiting for construction defects to be corrected. Whether the buyer must pay depends on more than the fact that a title deed has been issued. The purchase agreement, delivery date, actual possession, condominium status, management plan, nature of the expense and circumstances of the project should all be examined.
Large residential developments can generate significant common expenses. These may include security, cleaning, landscaping, elevators, common-area electricity, technical maintenance, reception services, swimming pools, gyms, heating systems and management expenses.
After the project becomes operational, these costs are generally allocated among the relevant property owners or occupants according to the applicable legal and management framework.
The difficult question is when that financial responsibility actually begins for a buyer whose apartment has not yet been delivered.
One of the most important distinctions in these disputes is between legal ownership and actual delivery of the apartment.
A developer may transfer title before handing over the keys. Conversely, possession may sometimes be delivered before every title-related procedure has been completed.
Foreign buyers should therefore determine separately:
These dates can materially affect the legal analysis.
Not necessarily in every dispute.
The title deed date can be legally important, particularly for obligations attached to condominium ownership. However, the developer cannot necessarily resolve every disagreement merely by saying, “You became the owner, therefore you must pay.”
The contractual arrangements, management plan, actual status of the project and nature of the claimed expense should also be examined.
This is one of the strongest factual issues for the buyer to investigate.
If the developer retains possession, the buyer has never received the keys and the apartment cannot practically be used, the buyer should question why charges relating to use and operation are being imposed for the pre-delivery period.
The answer will depend on the particular contractual and condominium framework, but the absence of actual delivery should not be ignored.
The sale agreement may contain provisions defining when maintenance fees begin.
For example, the contract may refer to the title-transfer date, physical-delivery date, project-opening date or another contractual milestone.
The wording should be examined together with mandatory legal rules and the actual circumstances. A contractual clause should not be considered in isolation.
The management plan can be particularly important in condominium projects.
Foreign buyers often sign purchase documents without receiving or carefully reviewing the project’s management plan. Yet that document may regulate allocation of common expenses, management structure and obligations of owners.
A copy should therefore be obtained and reviewed.
A buyer should not accept a substantial lump-sum demand without understanding what it covers.
Request a breakdown showing the relevant period and the individual categories of expense.
The claimed amount may include security, landscaping, electricity, heating, management fees, personnel, maintenance contracts or contributions to common facilities.
The buyer can then determine whether the charges actually relate to a period before delivery.
Not every cost incurred while completing a residential development should automatically be transferred to apartment buyers as a maintenance fee.
Construction-completion expenses, correction of defects, developer obligations and genuine operating expenses of completed common areas are conceptually different.
If the developer is attempting to transfer its own construction obligations to buyers through a broad “maintenance fee” category, the legal basis should be examined carefully.
This is especially important.
A buyer may be asked to pay substantial monthly fees even though elevators are unfinished, landscaping is incomplete, recreational facilities are closed and construction workers remain throughout the project.
In such circumstances, the buyer should examine which services are genuinely operational and which expenses relate to completion of the development itself.
Suppose the contract promised delivery in January, but the developer does not hand over the apartment until July while simultaneously demanding maintenance fees from February onward.
The buyer should analyze the maintenance demand together with the developer’s potential liability for delayed delivery.
It may be inappropriate to treat the maintenance dispute independently from the underlying delay.
This statement should be investigated factually.
Was the buyer formally invited to take possession? Was a delivery appointment offered? Were the keys available? Was the apartment actually complete? Were there serious defects preventing reasonable acceptance?
A buyer who simply refuses to collect the keys from a genuinely completed apartment may be in a different position from a buyer who cannot take possession because the property remains incomplete.
Keep emails, messages, registered notices and other communications concerning delivery.
These documents may establish whether possession was genuinely offered and when.
Foreign buyers should be particularly careful when asked to sign a document stating that the apartment was delivered earlier than it actually was.
The delivery protocol may later be used to establish the beginning of various contractual obligations.
Never sign a document containing an incorrect delivery date merely because the developer describes it as an administrative formality.
Before accepting possession, inspect the apartment carefully.
Photograph unfinished work and defects. Prepare a written deficiency list where appropriate.
This becomes particularly important where the developer claims that the buyer delayed delivery voluntarily.
Minor cosmetic deficiencies and major defects should not automatically be treated alike.
If the apartment cannot reasonably be occupied because of serious construction, utility or safety problems, the buyer may have stronger grounds to dispute the developer’s assertion that proper delivery occurred.
This situation requires particular analysis.
The buyer should preserve evidence showing that physical possession remained with the developer despite title registration.
Request written confirmation of the proposed delivery date and object promptly to disputed pre-delivery charges.
Foreign buyers frequently encounter this problem because they are not physically present when the project approaches completion.
The developer may claim that delivery was available months earlier even though the buyer says no effective notice was received.
Review the contractual notification provisions, emails, messages and any power of attorney given to representatives.
Potentially, depending on the project’s management structure.
The buyer should identify who is actually demanding payment: the developer, temporary management, condominium management or an external facility-management company.
Then request the legal basis for that entity’s authority and the calculation of the amount.
Potentially.
Even where some common-expense obligation exists, the amount and allocation may still be disputed.
A buyer can investigate whether the expenses were properly approved, allocated and documented and whether the claimed services were actually provided.
Where appropriate, obtain documents supporting the claimed charges.
A demand simply stating that the buyer owes several months of maintenance fees should not prevent the buyer from requesting information explaining how the debt arose.
This can create an important practical issue.
In newly completed projects, the developer may still own a large percentage of the units.
The buyer should examine whether common expenses are being distributed properly and whether unsold units are being treated consistently with the applicable rules.
Do not focus solely on the current month’s fee.
Request a complete statement showing:
the first month charged, monthly amounts, additional assessments, interest, penalties, payments and outstanding balance.
This can reveal that the dispute actually began long before physical delivery.
Potentially, depending on the legal basis and circumstances.
The buyer should examine the principal debt first. If the underlying pre-delivery maintenance charge is disputed, the associated interest calculation should also be reviewed.
Even if the buyer believes the charge is clearly incorrect, silence can make the dispute more difficult.
Respond in writing, identify the disputed period and request the legal and contractual basis of the claim.
A maintenance-fee dispute can develop into debt-enforcement proceedings.
The buyer should act immediately because procedural objection periods can be short. The enforcement document should be reviewed as soon as it is received.
A buyer living outside Turkey should ensure that legal notifications concerning the apartment are monitored properly.
Discovering enforcement proceedings after significant time has passed can seriously complicate the defense.
Whether payment under reservation is strategically appropriate depends on the circumstances.
For example, a buyer may want to avoid escalating enforcement exposure while preserving a claim concerning an allegedly improper payment.
The legal strategy should be determined before making substantial disputed payments.
Potentially, if the buyer establishes that the amounts lacked a valid legal or contractual basis.
The payment records, invoices, account statements, delivery documentation and communications should be preserved.
If the developer delivered the apartment substantially late, the buyer may have claims separate from the maintenance-fee dispute.
Depending on the contract and circumstances, these can involve losses resulting from delayed possession or other contractual remedies.
A foreign investor may have purchased the apartment specifically to generate rental income.
If delivery was delayed, evidence concerning the planned rental use and resulting losses should be preserved. Recoverability depends on the facts and applicable legal requirements.
This can create a particularly serious dispute.
If the developer conditions physical delivery on payment of contested pre-delivery maintenance fees, the contractual and legal basis for withholding possession should be examined immediately.
The buyer should request the developer’s position in writing.
Sales representatives may provide informal assurances that have little value later.
Important objections should be communicated through a legally reliable written method and relevant documents should be preserved.
The most important evidence usually includes the sale agreement, title deed, management plan, delivery protocol, payment records, maintenance invoices, account statements, photographs of the apartment, correspondence concerning completion, key-delivery records and formal notices.
The chronology created by these documents can determine the strength of the case.
Foreign buyers facing pre-delivery maintenance demands should analyze three questions separately: When did ownership begin? When was proper physical delivery completed or genuinely offered? What exactly are the disputed expenses for?
The answers may not always produce the same date.
This is why a developer’s simple assertion that “maintenance starts from title transfer” should not be accepted without examining the complete legal and factual framework.
Not automatically in every case. The purchase agreement, ownership status, management plan, delivery circumstances and nature of the expense should be reviewed.
No. Title registration and physical possession are legally and factually distinct events.
The buyer should examine the maintenance demand together with potential contractual claims arising from delayed delivery.
The nature of the expenses should be examined carefully. Genuine common operating expenses and the developer’s construction-completion costs should not simply be treated as identical.
The facts matter. Evidence concerning the delivery notice, actual condition of the apartment and buyer’s response should be reviewed.
Potentially. The calculation, allocation and underlying expenses may still be disputed.
Depending on the legal basis and circumstances, recovery of amounts alleged to have been improperly collected may be considered.
A claimed maintenance debt can potentially lead to enforcement proceedings. Any formal payment order should be reviewed immediately because procedural deadlines may apply.
Request the refusal and its legal basis in writing and evaluate urgent contractual and legal remedies.
Obtain the purchase agreement, management plan, complete maintenance account and delivery records. Then establish a precise timeline showing title transfer, contractual delivery, actual delivery and the first date from which maintenance fees were charged.
Disputes over pre-delivery maintenance fees can involve delayed apartment delivery, condominium expenses, management plans, defective construction, disputed delivery protocols, enforcement proceedings and recovery of improperly collected payments. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign property buyers and investors facing disputes with developers and residential project management companies. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in reviewing property purchase agreements, challenging disputed maintenance charges, handling delayed-delivery disputes, responding to enforcement proceedings and pursuing claims arising from residential property investments.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
WhatsApp: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey