- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
Is an isoloation valve, located under the kitchen sink treated as common property. Similiarly, is a tempering valve located under a laundry tub considered common property?
I have checked the ISTM guide to common property and couldn’t see any mention of these valves.
Given leaking pipes under a sink are the owners repsonsibility, I would imagine replacement of an isolation valve to be an owners reposnibility also.
-
Replies
-
Both items are the Owner’s responsibility provided they serve only that Lot.
The (in)famous “Who’s responsible …” document says that the main stopcock to a unit is OC responsibility but leaking pipes within the unit are individual lot owners’ responsibility. Pick the bones out of that!
Paradiso’s SM seems to have taken a sensible view on this for obvious reasons. If the stopcock is the last chance to turn off water coming into the apartment before it hits your system, then its Common Property. If, however, you have a secondary turn-off tap under the kitchen sink (for, say, fitting and removing dishwashers etc) it will be lot owners’ responsibility.
You can access the “Who’s responsible for what” document HERE but be aware it is a guide and not the law. You can amend and adopt it as a by-law for your building but even then, it’s not set in concrete as this paper by our legal sponsor Makinson D’apice suggests. Have a look HERE and whiz down to page 10 – it makes very interesting reading.
That said, the “Who’s responsible” document will be the first thing strata managers and CTTT adjudiacators look at when there’s a dispute so it does have considerable influence.
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.
I always try to apply the test of logic and consistency to such matters, as both seem to be lacking in all of the “Who’s responsible” publications that I’ve read.
Like if the water supply isolator to a Lot can be considered Common Property, why isn’t the Electrical Sub-Board which has precisely the same function for a different service, the failure of which has an equivalent impact? Fire is an issue too, so why not make smoke detectors in Lots Common Property?
Why does S64 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) give Owners Corporations the ability to repair items such as water and electrical isolation devices at its cost if those costs can’t be recovered from the Lot Owner. Why would those costs be recoverable unless Lot Owners were otherwise responsible for those repairs?
That’s why my Owners Corporation (O/C) resolved to apply that logic and consistency to the most contentious grey-areas with maintenance and repairs regularly faced in our Plan, and enshrined that in a Special By-Law.
As Jimmy said, even that Special By-Law will likely give the Members of the Tribunal something else to consider (inconsistently
) if we ever get there over a maintenance and repair dispute.I’m hopeful that the shortly to be released Review of the SCMA will address some of the inconsistencies, or at least make these interpretations less necessary.