@Juan Durection said:
JT, these points sound simplistic and unlikely to be true just on the surface of it. Are you sure? What if there was a load-bearing wall dispensed with or something affecting the structure? Or, say, the balcony was re-tiled and was now higher than the inside so water could drain in? There are a thousand things that could have been done affecting the integrity of the building …
I thought Juan had left the building.
Thanks for taking the time to point out how simplistic I am. But, hey, wait a minute … I said “non common property changes …” Could this possibly include changes that don’t affect common property?
To be clear, perhaps what I should have said was “any internal changes that don’t affect common property in any way shape or form, including the structure of the building, electrical wiring, load bearing walls, balconies, bathroom seals etc etc etc.” My problem is I prefer not to get all ‘bush lawyer’ when general principals are all you need.
Obviously anything that affects load-bearing walls, walls that carry common property (like water pipes and electrical cables to other apartments) and the integrity of the building would obviously be classed as common property changes.
But the relevant point is, in a dispute with the EC – which is what we are talking about – it’s not Giri’s problem if he or she didn’t make the changes and a previous owner did without permission.