Current Page

[RL]

I’m sure there’s a few existing topics like this, but I can’t find them now, so sorry about that.

In my NSW scheme, one unit’s bathroom is leaking water into the unit below due to the waterproofing failing.  The leaking bathroom is original and unrenovated (40+ year old building).  As the waterproofing is common property, the OC is now about to debate paying $30k to completely redo the leaking bathroom.  This quote includes demolition and removal of everything in the bathroom, putting down new waterproofing, labour to install tiles and fittings, and painting. The tiles and fittings themselves are excluded.

Sounds to me more like a “renovation” than a “repair”, with all labour included free to the owner.  When I, and every other owner I’ve spoken to (in my building or elsewhere) renovated a bathroom, we paid the entire costs of demolition, re-waterproofing, and labour as well as the PC items – notwithstanding that the tiles and waterproofing are common property.  We also had to file a by-law taking on responsibility for bad workmanship causing future problems.

So now I’m wondering, were we mugs – is getting a really cheap bathroom reno as simple as waiting till the existing one is damaging common property and other units?

My understanding is the OC is obliged to make the repair happen, but not necessarily that we have to pay for it too.

Thanks!

Topic

[Jimmy-T]

It sounds like you are paying for a renovation, but the question is, should you be. The owners corp has to fix the leaking floor, this much we know. Now, if fixing the floor means damaging the wall tiles, then they have to fix them too.  And if fixing the wall tiles means replacing the fittings … you get my drift.

The fact that the new tiles and fittings are being excluded from the costs to the owners corp makes this feel just about right to me. As for the labour costs? Hard to say most of them wouldn’t have fallen to the OC anyway.

Should you wait until the waterproofing fails so you get a big contribution towards your bathroom reno?  That’s up to individuals and how long they are prepare to live in a flat with a 40-year-old bathroom

 

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

Quote

[scotlandx]

You are paying to make good the bathroom after the waterproofing is replaced. To replace the waterproofing the bathroom has to be ripped out. The principle applies to any works the OC has to carry out.

I have a drainage pipe from my shower that is failing, and the bathroom will need to ripped out to do the work. Because the pipe is common property the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only.

Quote

[scotlandx]

You are paying to make good the bathroom after the waterproofing is replaced. To replace the waterproofing the bathroom has to be ripped out. The principle applies to any works the OC has to carry out.

I have a drainage pipe from my shower that is failing, and the bathroom will need to ripped out to do the work. Because the pipe is common property the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only.

Quote

[RL]

Jimmy-T wrote:

Should you wait until the waterproofing fails so you get a big contribution towards your bathroom reno? That’s up to individuals and how long they are prepare to live in a flat with a 40-year-old bathroom

Thanks for the replies!

As for how long an owner is prepared to tolerate an original bathroom … it also depends on whether they live there at all, or just rent it out to people who need somewhere to live and won’t risk complaining about how old the bathroom is.  In this case, it’s the latter, unfortunately.

It’s a matter of some concern and debate in the OC, as it is far from the only “original bathroom in a rented-out apartment by a couldn’t-care-less absentee owner”, and there’s a precedent about to be set.

Even the most casual inspection inside the unit would have shown the problem starting, even years ago.  The bubbling paint in living areas adjoining the wet areas; the mouldy carpet; the built-in wardrobes expanding and splitting due to damp; the corrosion on doorframes.  The owner’s agent made no inspections, the tenants reported no problems.

So assuming we can’t opt out of dropping the $30k in this case, is there anything the OC can do to prevent other owners from taking advantage of this opportunity in future?  Could a by-law ensure that owners and/or their agents report these problems before they become so expensive, or else they wear the cost of their negligence?

scotlandx wrote:

the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only

By “replacement cost only” do you mean like-for-like?  That is the OC will pay to repair to the same standard as was there, and if you want an upgrade you pay the difference yourself?

Regards

RL

Quote

[scotlandx]

Yes that’s right re replacement cost. What you should do is get a qualified person in to assess the current bathroom, and give an estimate of the replacement cost, i.e. like for like. In this case you say the owner is paying for the tiles and fittings so you may be ok.

An owner can’t expect the OC to replace a basic bathroom with marble and gold taps.

Failure of an owner to inspect and report problems that then become bigger problems is a big issue, I am not sure what measures can be put in place to deal with that. You could be proactive and arrange investigations of other lots, but you may not like what you find.

 

Quote

[Author]

Replies