- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
We have an owner who wants to install 3 additional skylight type fittings in the roof of their top floor apartment. Our problem is that we already have lots of skylights (over 25 skylights for the 6 top floor apartments and Common Property), vents and air-conditioning units that penetrate the building's metal roof. We have had a long history of water leaks (which cause damage to the apartment below) from these roof penetrations and are currently spending many thousands of dollars to repair them. From a maintenance point of view we really need no more.
Although the owner will of course pay to install the new skylight fittings (adding to their existing 5 skylights) we on the EC know that eventually the OC will have to maintain and repair them. It's not a matter of if but a matter of when and how much. The OC also has to pay for repairs to the apartment below if the roof leaks. This might be covered by insurance but even so our policy currently has a $1,000 excess per claim.
There's really no need for the owner to install more skylights. A few 5W LED lights will do the job (and work at night too), be a lot cheaper to install and would very low cost to run. The owner even admits this but has a 'preference' for daylight.
Can the EC refuse permission because the request will eventually cost the OC more in maintenance and insurance costs? Is this a reasonable response from the EC?
-
Replies
-
The permission wil require a special resolution by-law and you can make it a condition of that that the skylight installers agree to pay for maintenance and repairs of the skylights in perpetuity. You can also get them to pay for the creation of the by-law. If they don’t agree then you don’t allow the skylight. That’s a perfectly reasonable and common response to this kid of request.
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.
That's the way to do it. There's no obligation on the EC or Owners Corp to approve changes to Common Property that only benefit one person. They have to take rsponsibility for ALL costs associated with this as well as ongoing repairs and maintenance. And beware the “nod and a wink” approval – if it's not formalised as a special resolution, responsibility for repairs and maintenance will fall back on the Owners Corp if and when the unit is sold.
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.