- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hello,
A couple of months ago i posted here about our dispute with an owner whose Original Parquetry Floor was damaged in March 2017. The owner contended that water had entered her apartment through a double brick wall and damaged the centres of three rooms, including one area of damage at least 10 meters from the wall in question, with an internal wall in between.
The OC contends that actions taken by the owner effected the structural integrity of the floor. Additionally, after acquiescing to lodging an insurance claim, investigators found no evidence of inundation. One assessor stated “the insured has either sanded this multiple times or whoever sanded the floor recently has used a heavy grit sand paper to try and get the floor flat due to the old concrete slab not being level.” This supports the testimony of adjacent owners who had witnessed the floor being sanded.
A letter from the owner’s lawyer cited Seiwa Pty Ltd vs Owner Strata Plan 35042 (2006) as precedent in this matter. I understand this forum cannot give legal advice but I’m curious to know if this precedent does actually apply in our case, given we are contending that actions taken by the owner on the floor has effected its structural integrity (our evidence for NCAT is the insurance report).
We do not dispute the OC’s responsibility to maintain and repair common property, however this owner insists her floor was in pristine condition prior to March 2017. She never requested the OC perform any maintenance, and in fact admits that she was not aware the floor was common property until May 2017.
Her claims in NCAT are for the OC to pay to replace the entire floor (she has rejected a settlement offer to repair – as suggested by members of this forum) and she is also claiming compensation for lost rent.
I am now compiling our evidence for NCAT and while confident we have a sound case I am wondering if we still need professional legal advice.
many thanks