- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
We are having our AGM next week. The strata committee is submitting a new by law – see below. The aim of this by-law, as I understand it, is to shift responsibility to individual owners within the lot. While I understand this makes sense for floor coverings and even tiles. I don’t think it makes sense for the owners to take responsibility for:
- exhaust fans – we are in a 7 storey tower and the fans are in ceiling shafts above the bathrooms and laundry and as I think one fan my control several units.
- thermostatic mixing valves
- balcony tiles
My instinct is to reject this by-law. Should I?
Philip
The proposed by-law
32 Exhaust fans, bathroom/laundry tiles, balcony/terrace tiles, thermostatic mixing valves and floor coverings
(1) Pursuant to section 106(3) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, the Owners Corporation has deemed that it is inappropriate to maintain, renew, repair or replace: (a) any exhaust extraction fan located within the ceiling space of each Lot; (b) any floor or wall tiles in a Lot, including but not limited to tiles in the bathroom, kitchen, laundry and/or on the balcony or terrace of a Lot; (c) any thermostatic mixing valves controlling the delivery of hot water to a Lot; and (d) any floor coverings and finishes within a Lot; provided that the damage to any item described above has not been caused by an insurable event.
Notation: For the avoidance of doubt, it is noted the Lot owner is responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing any thermostatic mixing valve that services the Lot, regardless of whether the valve is located within the Lot or within the common property walls or ceilings that enclose the Lot. (2) If an Owner seeks the Owners Corporation’s approval of a by-law to permit him or her to replace the tiles in the bathroom, laundry, balcony or terrace of a Lot, any such by-law must include a provision also requiring the Owner to replace the associated waterproofing membrane.
-
Replies
-
I would certainly be looking for further information before I supported this.
For instance, has anyone in the block (especially on the committee) recently had tiles replaced or thermostats repaired at Owners Corp expense? If so, this would be grossly unfair.
I also worry about lot owners taking responsibility for things that are embedded in common property walls or cavities. Who pays for repairs of common property when the owner needs to cut in to repair a thermostat.
I would want the committee to explain in detail why this change is necessary and I would consider this a non-urgent change of status.
So I would go to the meeting, tell them they need to explain to everyone in the block more clearly and fully why this is necessary. Until then you will recommend to other owners that they say no.
I also think the rider in 106 (3)(b): “its decision will not affect the safety of any building, structure or common property in the strata scheme or detract from the appearance of any property in the strata scheme” has not been fully addressed. Don’t the tiles on a balcony affect the appearance?
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
As an observation only, it looks to me like they are trying to move maintenance responsibilities to how they apply in Victoria.
In Victoria, owners would usually be responsible for all of the items mentioned. And if the maintenance of the item affected common property, the owner would have to repair the common property.
It seems to work in Victoria, but it’s a different state, a different OC Act.
Seems reasonable to me. We are in townhouses but we recently adopted a rule (aka by-law) to put beyond doubt that each unit owner was responsible to maintain anything that only serviced that one unit, even when the equipment, conduit, path, driveway or whatever had been placed on the common property, with or without permission.