Thanks Jimmy, yes that is understood. I know from experience that Masked2014 doesn’t have a strong position.
take for example a fine dining restaurant in town that had taken over the ground floor common property bathrooms and a lobby. The previous owners had obtained consent of the OC to lodge a DA, but not permission to alter common property or stay in occupation on common property.
There were changes to ownership to several lots, and as a result, the OC decided to look into the matter, and took action through Fair Trading. The OC were successful in getting an order that the current owner had to get a by-law, lease or licence for their alterations, should they want to keep them and had to maintain them in good order. The sticking point was the lobby area, and it was agreed that they would vacate the lobby and as the OC had known about the alterations for so long, the OC were to fund the reinstatement of the lobby, but if the OC hadn’t known of the alterations, the lot owner was about to foot the bill.
I have also recognised that Masked2014 has contacted the builder that did the works, as he should of. This to me sounds like a contractor doing shoddy workmanship that should be fixed by that contractor or action taken through Fair Trading to ensure they don’t keep up with the same shoddy practices.
From the OC’s perspective, they could fix the common property, reinstating it to its original condition prior to the down lights, ie, removing the down lights and reinstate the original light within the apartment like other owners have. The issue for Masked2014, is that they (the previous owner) has not obtained the correct approvals for these works, and in doing so, have intruded into common property. There is plenty of legal precedent that will assist the OC’s case against the current owner, that they have not got consent to keep the works on common property.
I am suggesting, rather than having that battle, why don’t the OC and Owner work together to take action against the shoddy builder who should be the one paying all costs to fix defective building works. 2 years non structural and 6 years structural warranty requirements under the home building act. The contractor should have been licensed etc, and dependent on the contract and cost of works should be providing warranties.
Just some food for thought…. It’s easier for all to work together to resolve their common issue, use the energy to get it solved rather than fight against the other owners and strata manager, put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel as an owner, paying to fix someone else’s shoddy renovations, that benefit no one, but just that apartment…
mr s