- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago by -.
-
Topic
-
I purchased and moved into a townhouse in January but have noticed the tiling in the courtyard is loose and likely to lift over the next few years requiring repair or replacement. I checked the strata plan which shows the courtyards are not CP, however the strata plan says:
Courtyards are limited in depth to 2 below the upper surface of the ground floor of the adjoining unit except where there is a concrete base or where the basement exists below and in height to 5 above the upper surface of the ground floor of the adjoining unit except where covered within this limit.
Approx half the courtyard from the building out is tiled on a concrete slab which forms the roof of the underground carpark underneath (the basement). The back half of the courtyard is a small garden.
Strata management have advised that as the courtyard is not shown as CP on the plan the tiling and anything else in the courtyard is the responsibility of the lot owner.
Am i correct in thinking that because the concrete slab the tiling is on forms part of the building (it’s the upper surface of the carpark ceiling) and the plan states “except where there is a concrete base or where the basement exists below” the tiling would be the responsibility of the OC?
Seems clear cut to me that the tiling is the OC’s responsibility but i could be interpreting the plan completely wrong.
Many thanks in advance for any info or guidance that can be provided.
-
Replies
-
Am i correct in thinking that because the concrete slab the tiling is on forms part of the building (it’s the upper surface of the carpark ceiling) and the plan states “except where there is a concrete base or where the basement exists below” the tiling would be the responsibility of the OC?
No. You’re wrong.
You are trying to say that the existence of the slab means that anything on top of it is common property. What the plan is saying is that the slab and anything below the slab is common property. Anything up to 5 m above the slab (ground level) is lot owner’s responsibility. This includes the tiles. Tiles are not part of the common property. They were attached to common property.
The plan says that everything from ground level to 2(metres?) below ground level is lot owner’s responsibility, except if there is a concrete slab or a basement beneath the courtyard. This makes sense because if there is a concrete slab or a basement, the lot owner cannot drill a hole in their courtyard and drill through the ceiling of the basement. The basement is NOT part of the lot. On the other hand, if there was merely dirt beneath your courtyard, you could dig as deep as two metres below the ground level.
The tiles on top of the slab are lot owner’s responsibility because anything from ground level up to 5 (metres?) is part of the lot. The exception is where a ceiling of some kind exists before you reach the 5 metre height. e.g. if you had a tree in your courtyard, the first five metres of height is your responsibility.
In NSW you should check https://rg-guidelines.nswlrs.com.au/strata_schemes/strata_scheme_questions/common_property which explains some of the complexities.
One of the big problems is tiles. They start off usually being common property. There is a good reason for that. You don’t need to drill a hole through the concrete floor to cause problems. In most cases the tiles are placed on a waterproof lining. If that is interfered and the area is accessible to water then water will leak through into the concrete and possibly out to other units, and from experience they aren’t happy. Or it might cause concrete cancer and nobody will be happy.
Our major problem is with showers, which are onto internal walls, but these walls are classified as common property. There is a by-law that if a unit owner replaces the tiles themselves as part of a renovation then it is their responsibility for the tiles. Record keeping on renovations has been very poor. Our previous strata manager wasn’t going to win strata manager of the year.
Anyway, the reason that strata has to keep control of certain things is that they can affect the building structure. Balconies are the devils work.
Our major problem is with showers, which are onto internal walls, but these walls are classified as common property.
This is the most common defect in new buildings and renos because the work done is literally covered up and is usually only revealed later, Former building commissioner David Chandler targetted this (among other flaws) by having inspectors rip up tiles to check the waterproofing is randomly selected bathroom in new blocks. If too many were found to be defective, he ordered every bathroom to be re-waterpoofed. No wonder he was targetted by dodgy developers and their cronies in the NSW Liberals.
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.