This is a difficult area. On the one hand, one feels an obligation to ensure that an incoming owner’s decision to purchase is made on a fully-informed basis. On the other, one fears possible legal action if a disappointed vendor believes that he realised less than he expected because the sales process was undermined by existing owners pointing out undisclosed problems with the apartment. In one recent sale in my building, the owner (a local entrepreneur who clearly had no intention of living in the property) sought agreement to a plan to open up the kitchen area. We agreed to this, subject to an engineering report and local council approval. However, he also stated an intention to paint, generally upgrade and recarpet.
We were then taken aback when, without further notification to the Owners Corporation, he proceeded to instal wooden flooring. We asked him what measures were being taken to comply with our standard by-law requiring floors to be covered in a way to avoid causing nuisance to other residents (given that the layout of the building means that the apartment’s main living area is directly above a neighbour’s bedrooms). The response was the predictable data sheet from the floor’s supplier claiming full compliance with BCA and “strata” requirements. The latter is of course untrue, since “strata” does not require any numerical measurement of sound levels but, rather, a lack of disturbance to neighbours — something that can be determined only when the floor is in place!
My reaction to this was to ask that the correspondence be kept on file by our Managing Agent so that there would at least be the potential for a prudent would-be purchaser to be forewarned.