There seems to be too much simplification even by the legal people that then makes it open for wrong interpretations and often the difference between a property registered as domestic is confused with one registered for other use.
I did believe: The domestic property is registered as a strata plan and all features are then referred to that day and have to be maintained without delay.
At the same time the property had each lot valued based on the dollar value of the lot, this may be totally independent of size and location but often has some relation but does not need to have.
From this lot value the unit entitlement is calculated. The unit entitlement is then used to calculate the lots share in all common costs.
But equally the unit entitlement is also used for the lots value in any vote (if requested by the owner). Often forgotten is the lot entitlement is also used to calculate any dividend distributed back to the lots.
The lot entitlement is also the base for the lots rights.
When a property with ten lots has a single power supply of 200 amperes it is normally divided by ten and each lot is assumed to have 20 amperes each but as normally not all lots use the power at the same time and the individual lot fuse is larger at say 40 amperes.
When calculating the lots share of power it should not be divided by ten but by the unit entitlement.
When some unit’s upgrades including installing air conditioner(s) they may exceed their share of power and the problem does not become noticeable until the total power requirement exceeds the 200 amperes available and the central circuit breaker blows.
This is clearly not a maintenance issue as the power available to each lot was known from the day the property was registered as a strata plan.
This is an issue of change of the building features to allow more power to each lot, this type of positive enhancement would most likely be through an owner’s special resolution.
The opposite of removing power say from 300 amperes down to 200 amperes would be classified as a loss of value to a lot and require an owners unanimous resolution.
But neither cae is a maintenance issue as it is a change to building features.
Not being able to fit air conditioning was a feature you purchased into and if not acceptable you should have purchased a lot with this feature and cannot demand maintenance but can request a feature upgrade.
Not only air conditioning but other feature enhancement that these days are seen as normal includes building security by adding entrance door locks but neither is maintenance but an owner’s decision for feature change that cannot be demanded but only requested.
In our property the power was downgraded from 360 amperes to 200 amperes and all entrance doors locks where removed or made in operational all under maintenance and never minuted or told to the owners.
I must be wrong as I thought in NSW this is theft a criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person’s consent.
With the locks removed we already have people sleeping in the stairwells, and with easy access we may build a swimming pool on the roof for the general public under maintenance.
NEXT?