@Kangaroo said:
Wouldn’t smart OCs never ever approve lot owner’s additions/alterations to CP?
Not very smart to prevent owners from upgrading their apartments or townhouses – just watch the values of properties in the building slide as it becomes known that basic common property related issues like kitchen and bathroom renovations are verboten.
Then all additions/alterations would be unapproved and the lot owner’s responsibility.
Only until the lot owner sold, and then they would become the Owners Corp’s responsibility (and they would have had no control over the work that had been done).
You wouldn’t need a big long register of SBLs.
No, but you would want a frequent flyer discount at the CTTT with the number of of “who’s responsible for what?” cases.
And the OC may even be able to charge the lot owner for removal of unapproved tiles stuck onto CP when they have to get at the waterproof membrane.
See above comment re frequency of trips to the CTTT.
Under what circumstances would an OC ever want to agree to being responsible for a lot owner’s changes to CP?
None that i can think of – but that is the default position of the Act in relation to Special Resolution By-laws. That’s why you have a Special Resolution By-law that transfers responsibility to the lot owner. No by-law, no renovations: it’s really that simple.
Where in the Act does it say that unapproved additions/alterations to CP suddenly change status and become CP when the lot changes ownership?
It’s not spelled out in the Act but the Owners Corporation is responsible for Common Property without limitation. According to case law, that means if Joe Blow buys an apartment in good faith and the Owners Corp has failed in its duty to manage its property (by allowing the previous owner to do what they wanted without taking legal responsibility for it) then responsibility falls back on the OC
Theoretically they could pursue the previous owner through a civil action (not strata law) but the slim chances of success in terms of the cost of taking the action being substantially less than what they might gain make this an unlikely option. Costs awarded by courts never cover the actual costs of a legal action and rarely if ever take into account the hassles and stress caused to individual EC members (for instance).
That’s why when you are selling an apartment these days you will probably be asked to sign a waiver saying you have not undertaken any unapproved changes to common property
Also, lot owners should be careful tiling balconies for the first time, or re-tiling over existing tiles, as this alters the effective height of the balcony rail, and may therefore breach building standards.
True. However, many modern building have a ‘hob’ at the base of the balustrade that takes the effective height well above the legal minimum.