- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
My mother in law lives in the ACT in a strata complex of 38 dwellings. Each is a one storey 2 bedroom property joined to an identical other with garden and a garage.
Recently an occupier complained of creaking and groaning in the roof. An inspection has found that the roof trusses were joined with defective nail plates that are beginning to part company with the wood.
Strata management sent a circular to all residents urging them to get a structural report done. This has put many owners (from young couples to elderly pensioners into a panic)
Documents from the first property to be inspected explain about certain nail plates used from the 70s to the early 90s that are defective. (The complex was built in 1991)
Strata correspondence that I have read states that strata management seem to have no responsibility or insurance cover for this sort of event. I am surprised that this is the case? Do they not have any legal responsibilities ?
We intend to employ a structural engineer in ACT to do an inspection on my mother in laws property (My partner and I have about a 20% financial stake in the building) and to then do whatever remedial work needs to be done.
Do we just take it on the chin and move on ? I am interested in any advice you can offer.
Thanks
Willis
-
Replies
-
One thing to establish is whether you are class A or class B units. What you describe sounds like townhouses, so almost certainly class B. I’ll reply later. One short answer would be that usually each unit would be responsible for its own maintenance. However, if it is due to a construction defect, then it is probably the OC’s responsibility, the builder being long gone. If all units have the same problem, then it would make sense for the OC to deal with it collectively, whether that is required or not.
If I were on your EC, I would be looking at getting one engineer to look at all units.
I can respond more later.
Peter.
It might be arguable that the OC is responsible to repair since it is a construction defect, but I am not certain. Usually individual owners are responsible to do repair and maintenance to class B units. However, regardless of whether the OC would be obliged to repair, I suggest it should.
By ensuring that all the buildings are safe, the OC would avoid the risk of being found to have been negligent.
I suggest the EC is obliged to immediately notify the OC’s insurer of the problem and its proposed course of action.
Since all units are likely to have the same problem, either now or as a risk in the future, it would be cheaper for the OC as a whole to fix the problem for all units. There are, therefore, no good grounds for anyone to object to fixing it for all units.
While maintenance of class B units usually falls to the individual unit owners, from s.24(1)(g), the OC can pass a special resolution making the OC responsible to repair this specific defect of the roof trusses. “An owners corporation for a units plan must maintain the following: … as authorised by a special resolution (if any)—all buildings on all class B units on the units plan. Example—par (g) a special resolution authorising the owners corporation to paint all buildings on the class B units and to carry out roofing and structural repairs to all class B units, but excluding responsibility for internal painting and minor repairs of class B units“
So, in this case, you would have a special resolution just authorising the repair of this specific defect of the trusses of all units, but excluding all other repairs.
I would strongly recommend that your EC writes again to all unit owners proposing to arrange for an engineer to inspect all units and then for a builder to make all repairs recommended by the engineer. It should notify a general meeting to put a motion authorising that pursuant to s.24(1)(g). I think the resolution should authorise the OC to arrange with the owner of each unit for inspection by a structural engineer and then make the repair of any defects of the roofing trusses with the cost to be taken from the contingency component of your sinking fund.
From s.83(1)(f) “For this division, expected sinking fund expenditure means expenditure for the following purposes that the owners corporation reasonably expects will be necessary to maintain in good condition the common property and any other property it holds: … for a building on a class B unit—any maintenance … that is authorised by a special resolution under section 24 (1) (g)”
Your resolution should also amend the sinking fund plan to include 1) using some of the contingency funding for this purpose, and 2) increasing the sinking fund levy as necessary to rebuild the contingency component over the next several years.
If you have the default rule 10, the EC would use that to appoint first the engineer and then the builder as its representatives to enter the units (at a reasonable time) to undertake the maintenance.
There is a risk that someone will get the wrong end of the stick and not understand that the EC is seeking to minimise the costs to all owners of something they have to address. I suggest acting quickly but with clear communication.
If you want to talk about it, you can get in touch via the personal message feature of this site.