- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi
Our building is due to have some defect works commencing that are a result of a legal action against the builder – they will be rectifying works under the statutory warranty. There will be disruption and noise for at least a few months, as these are some major works, all of which are common property. I currently live there but have to move due to work, and want to rent it out (can’t sell it til the defects are complete). I tried waiting as long as I could but delays mean they could keep being “just about to start” forever.
I’ve never been a landlord, and rented for 20 years so I really don’t want to be a shitty landlord. I’d be honest with prospective tenants, and I would absolutely do anything I could do mitigate the inconvenience.
My question is, who foots the bill for this? If I can claim on landlord insurance, tho presumably they have a pre existing clause, what does that mean for future premiums? Should it be part of the defect claim against the builder, or a claim against the OC?
-
Replies
-
That’s going to be a tough one to negotiate.
The court presumably has made an order against the builder. If it’s did not include an order for costs related to compensation of tenants or relocation of owners, that boat has sailed.
You can try claiming against the OC, but I doubt whether the OC insurance will cover this as it’s not related to an insurable event.
So claim against the OC but in the end you will be footing parts of the bill.
So claim against the OC but in the end you will be footing parts of the bill.
But that would surely be better than paying all of the bill on your own
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.
Think about it this way – if this was a stand-alone house, you’d be dealing directly with the builder and any costs would be borne by yourself or the builder. If your neighbour was doing disruptive work, you’d have Buckley’s chance of getting compensation for a disgruntled tenant.
if you think the strata committee bears some responsibility for the delay, then raise your issue with them and try your luck, but I don’t really see why it’s up to all your neighbours/co-owners to fund your loss of rent if they are not culpable.
My suggestion is to offer a relatively short lease (eg 6 months) at a below-market rate. These leases are often taken up by people who are renovating their own homes and need a short-term temporary home. If the lease specifies that they will be subject to renovation disruption during their tenancy, in return for a below-market rent, then you have less chance that they’ll try for more compensation. Plus they only have to put up with it for a short time. You could also say that if it’s unbearable, they can break their lease with none of the usual penalties.
remember, YOU get to choose who rents your place. So choose someone who seems to understand the situation.
I don’t really see why it’s up to all your neighbours/co-owners to fund your loss of rent if they are not culpable.
Comparisons with a free-standing house are hardly relevant and it’s a matter of responsibility not culpability. The buildingais a whole is benefitting from the remedial work being done. Why then should one owner bear all the costs of disruption.
The Owner should claim against the OC (as they are the responsible party) and they should claim against the builder, who is the culpable party. If that is too onerous for the OC, then the scheme should stump up and pay for the disruption to the apartment concerned.
Again, this work is on common property therefore it benefits the whole building. Look at it from that perspective then explain why any single owner should bear all the costs of the related disruption. The big question is, how do you calculate the disruption – from when the OP can’t rent it out due to possible disruption or when the work actually starts? If the OC dig their heels in, I’d take it to NCAT, just to get a ruling.
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.
Jimmy, you raise an interesting point about why should one owner bear more cost than the others. So let’s say that the OC decides or is forced to pay for minklet’s tenant to move into alternative accommodation for a while. What’s to stop some of the owner-occupiers then saying “but we’re disrupted too, and we’d like the OC to pay for us to move into alternative accommodation also?”
Another way to look at it is this: why does minklet get his disruption costs paid for by the OC, but the other owners don’t? All owners will ultimately benefit from this disruption, including minklet. Everyone contributes financially for the work. Some owners will “pay” extra for that disruption by living through it. In minklet’s case, he/she doesn’t live through it but instead incurs the extra costs by losing out on rent.
I don’t know what the law says here, but it seems to me that everyone is being disrupted by this work and everyone could claim compension for disruption – it’s just that in minklet’s case the disruption can more easily be calculated in financial terms. Does that really mean that he/she is more disadvantaged than the other owners?
Does that really mean that he/she is more disadvantaged than the other owners?
That’s why I suggested they get a ruling from NCAT. We have no idea how much everyone would be disrupted and why he might be no worse off than others. We shouldn’t assume anything – but a mediation or, if need be, a Tribunal ruling would at least hear the arguments
But I think there’s a fundamental principle here – one unlucky owner should not have to bear more than their fair share of costs or disruption because of work that benefits everyone.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.