- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
A previous special privilege by-law has, amongst other things, restricted external painting to “Previously Painted External Surfaces”. However the front doors of the strata’s townhouse units are timber doors with a varnished external face. External re-painting has recently been carried out but the front doors were not re-varnished. Is there a definition of “painting” in NSW strata law such that re-varnishing is included or can be excluded?
-
Replies
-
Perhaps the motion to adopt that by-law was not especially well worded. One thing to do would be to look at any supporting documentation or comment that went with the motion or the minutes of the meeting. Perhaps it was stated or someone asked if this would include doors and the proponents of the motion said yes or no and people voted to adopt the resolution on that understanding. What I am getting at is that it might be clear that the spirit and intention of the decision was to include everything that had paint, varnish, lacquer, whatever or it might be clear that it really was only about some very particular walls.
The in most schemes, units’ front doors are common property. The upkeep of their exterior surfaces is therefore an owners corporation responsibility. Unless there are specific by-laws passing that responsibility to the lot owners, then the OC should be looking after them. However, if the owners were allowed to install their own doors on the condition that they maintained them, then they should pay.
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.
This is an interesting coincidence. We recently obtained orders to have our CP front door replaced. It took me three years in the tribunal and appeal panel. Once we obtained the orders, the committee tried vigorously to convince us not to paint the door, like all of the other doors in the building, but to varnish it. We smelled a rat, as the conflict was hard fought. The wood was not of good quality and we were on a floor with three other doors all painted. We insisted it was painted the same way all of the other doors were painted. We suspect the others owners would have been told we requested the varnish and rejected the paint. Now after several years of seeing a pattern of transference of responsibility this is just another cheeky loophole.
Seriously these guys need to start a hobby like wood work then they can have all the varnish they want.
Hi, If I’ve read the above correctly, could it be to do with the original tradespeople’s quote, and, as Mr JT says, whether the OC has specified. Or simply that the OC is aware of varnishing as a different task compared with painting, the special materials etc, as Sir Humphrey says, and perhaps need a painter, or painters, experienced in one, or both types of applications and they intend to do that job at some other stage?