- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I’m the Secretary / Treasurer of the Strata concerned.
Here’s the issue, sent in an email to my fellow SC members and our Strata Manager 2 weeks ago, prompted by an invoice being received for repairs to an owners Air Con unit located on Common Property.
There 70+ units in the strata, approximately half of which have air con condensers on their courtyard / balcony, and half are located on Common Property – in the garage area.
It appears to have fallen on deaf ears so far as no-one has responded, other than 1 guy suggesting that I see what Flat Chat has to say on the matter. I have pored over the forums but can’t find any posts relevant to this situation.
CURRENT SITUATION
The following is an extract from the minutes of an Executive Committee meeting held on 12th April 2010:-
“Air Conditioning Units in Garages”
(Strata manager’s name – removed to protect the guilty) has confirmed that maintenance of condenser units located in common property is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation. All other units are the responsibility of each owner”
There are 3 problems with this interpretation, as follows:-
1. According to this NSW Govt website It’s actually incorrect. It is the owner’s responsibility to maintain their own Air Conditioning unit, regardless of where the unit is located. The relevant item under the heading:-
“Lot owner responsibilities for maintenance, repair or replacement” is:-
“3. Electrical: (a) air conditioning systems, whether inside or outside of a lot, which serve only that lot”2. It is discriminatory in that some owners would benefit financially at the expense of those owners whose Air Con. Units are situated within their lot. In fact the latter owners not only have to pay for their own Air Con. maintenance, but also have to contribute towards the cost of other owners’ Air Con. maintenance.
3. No budget provision has ever been made for this. This has not been a major concern up until now, but it will start to impact over the coming years given the age of the units.
4. Because of the budget, and therefore levy, impact this really should have been put to an AGM for a decision by the Owners.
THE OPTIONS
- CONTINUE WITH THE STATUS QUO
Given the problems identified with the current situation (above) I don’t believe that this should be considered as a viable option. Because of the Levy / budget implications I believe that we would have to specifically advise the owners at the AGM of the situation. I suspect that there would be some serious objections voiced, and that it would probably not be supported.
- THE OWNERS CORPORATION TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL AIR CON. UNITS
Assuming an average cost of $5000 to repair / replace every unit over the next 5 years it would cost approx. $375,000. In order to allow for this amount the budget would require an annual levy increase of approx. $1000 p.a. for each owner. I don’t believe that this would need a By Law to put into effect (happy to stand corrected), we would however need to specifically draw the owners’ attention to this when presenting the budget for approval. If the owners do not approve it we would revert to option (3) below, and ensure that the decision (and potential financial impact on individual owners) is minuted.
- HAVE ALL OWNERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN UNITS
This complies with the relevant legislation / regulations, and as such would not require a By-Law. We would, of course, need to advise all owners of this change, which could be done in the covering letter which goes out with the AGM Agenda.
RECOMMENDATION
I would recommend option 3.
What do Flat-chatters think?
-
Replies
-
Option 2 permits bulk deals on regular maintenance & replacement & may wind up more cost effective for all owners in the long run. Even easier if all the air cons are all the same model/manufacturer. Regular maintenance may prevent issues down the track e.g. with noise & air con related water leaks.
I’d be approaching a few air con maintenance folk & getting the actual cost of a regular maintenance/replacement schedule before making a decision. If the air con folk are on site for all units then at the very least you’re going to save on call out fees.
Option 3 would be my preferred option. It would be unreasonable to have half of the owners receiving a ‘free’ air conditioner whilst the remainder not only pay for their own air conditioner but also the other owner’s air conditioners. Different owners run their air conditioners more or less frequently than others and this would impact on the maintenance required and the longevity of the unit.
Can you provide additional information please ….
What do your by-laws say about air conditioners? How and when was the initial approval given to the owners to install their air conditioners on common property? What reason has the SM given for his opinion that the individually owned air conditioners are the responsibility of the OC to maintain? At whose instigation was the clarification sought from the SM in 2010 – was it from a committee member who would have gained a ‘free air -conditioner’?
The statement from the SC meeting of 2010 is merely an opinion. The OC maintenance and repair (and including replacement) of individual owner’s air conditioners on common property is not something that can be decided by the SC.
++ Option 3. The benefit of the units are being enjoyed by individual lots and therefore maintenance/repair should be paid by individual lots. Option #1 would be enabling cross subsidies to happen which would seem awfully unfair. Option #2 sounds like a nightmare to administer.
All on the proviso that the units are compliant with any noise/appearance rules that may be in place. #3 would be my go to.