[Austman]

It's a common problem and one we have too.  But our OC management pointed out:  “Building defects are not within the standard scope of duties of body corporate managers and any work managers do is chargeable.”  And also that:  “Pursuing a builder through the legal processes can be very expensive –  around $5,000.00 to start the process with a solicitor and expert reports and more than $30,000.00  if a barrister is eventually needed.”

Sadly, after 6 years, the builder is probably not going to do anything unless you start a legal process against him. Ours stopped returning calls etc. The OC has to decide if is worth the cost and effort in taking the legal path.   So get some legal advice first.   In our case the building defects are costing around $30,000.00 to repair, so taking legal action (which might fail) was not so attractive.

Ideally the builder should co-operate and fix all the defects, free of charge.  But that's mostly just a dream.

Really it's the EC that should be directing the matter and making requests of the manager.

[Austman]

Using locks with a keypad (needing a 4 digit PIN) is one way.  We do this at our building.  The PIN code can be set to be the same for all the locks. 

Residents can give the code to selected visitors and service providers.

And of course the PIN code can, and should be, changed from time to time.

[Austman]

So it comes to: Does the EC need to seek legal permission to find out if it can seek legal permission?

Ridiculous. 

In Victoria, the Committee (EC) can represent the OC in all ways except where the OC Act says it can't.

[Austman]

It's true Gilgal1 that “new” technology  takes time to be totally accepted.

Here in Victoria we are not required to have a notice board.  And we have never had one where I live.  So our blog introduced something new that did not even exist before.  At the time I also suggested a notice board as an alternative but several owners objected  because they thought notice boards were generally unsightly and we'd need two of them because we have two buildings with separate entrances.  Notice boards are not much use to non-resident owners or managers, agents etc either .  And a blog can also present so much more information.

Residents don't need email or even their own computer to use the blog – although clearly it helps!  They just need to be able to access the internet from somewhere (or know someone that has access to it).  In reality, all 12 apartments in our buildings have easy enough access.

It took about a week to write all the information on our blog.  But once done, it stays reasonably stable.  For us, our blog is more for information and not really a discussion forum.

[Austman]

If the wall concerned is truly 'internal', I tend to agree with you Vivienne.

And by 'internal' it would have to mean that no other lot owner or common property was affected.  So both sides of the leaking wall were still the same lot.

Was another lot or common property directly affected by the leak?

[Austman]

To ensure some balance, I gave all EC members administrative access to our blog.  But we only have 3 on the EC.  Perhaps for larger ECs just the office bearers would be enough?

And our blog was mainly intended to be a way for the EC to publish information and not a chat forum.

So far, the only slightly controversial issue is that one owner is concerned that one of the blog's entries, which details an on-going problem with water leaks in the building, might affect our property values (although the issue is also mentioned in our AGM and Commitee meeting minutes etc).

My response was: Let's deal with the issue and then we can delete it from the blog.

[Austman]

Tricky Leaks said:

Hi Austman, What you have described is nothing new. I take it you are Melbourne?

Hi Tricky Leaks.  Yes – Fitzroy, Victoria.

 

And here is my post again, minus the photos [Thanks – JT].  The problem is still on-going!

 

—————————————————————————————

Summary

All 6 top floor apartments have experienced water leaking into the apartment from the building’s roof and or external terraces.

History

The problem began to be noticed soon after residents first moved into the apartments in 2004.  At that time the original builder attempted to repair the problem in some of the apartments.

The problem in detail

Water leaks appear to be caused by 3 main faults:

    The building’s external walls were not correctly flashed to the terraces’ surface.  Water can leak through where the wall meets the terrace.
    The waterproof membrane beneath the terrace tiles in some cases has been violated.  Water can leak though the terrace and the membrane into the apartment below.
    Rivets and joins in the metal roof have moved causing sealing to crack.  This has allowed water to leak though the roof.

There are some other causes too but the above seem to be the main ones.

Actions taken so far

This matter was reported to our Body Corporate managers in 2005.  In 2006 they responded as follows:

——————————————————————————————————–

Building defects are not within the standard scope of duties of body corporate managers and any work managers do is chargeable. However, in an effort to assist members we arranged for a defect report to be prepared and have regularly tried to contact the builder/developers without success.
 

… re the issue of VCAT action regarding defects. Management has considerable experience in such matters and we make the following comments:

    The fee to lodge a claim is $32.50 as stated
 

A statement of claim needs to be prepared by the party making the claim (ie the one suffering the damage). To do this a solicitor needs to be engaged and an expert report with costing of the rectification works prepared. Estimated cost $5,000

    Attendance at a Directions hearing – solicitor cost $1,000

    Mediation hearing – solicitor $2,000

    Hearing if mediation fails to resolve the matter – barrister $7,000 per day for possibly 3 days = $21,000

It is naive to consider that a claim can be lodged and you then appear before VCAT without legal representation, expert reports etc and hope to win a case regardless of how obvious the defect may be.

Yours faithfully

Manager

——————————————————————————————————–

After the above letter nothing much happened and those managers eventally resigned as our managers, handing over to another company.

 

To date, most owners have independently tried to have the problem fixed. Some have had some repairs done by the original builder.  Some have repaired the damage themselves.  Some have claimed the repair costs on the Owners Corporation insurance policy.   Some have hired specialist tradespersons.   Success has been mixed.

Common Property

All the roof areas and all external terraces of our building are declared Common Property on the Plan of Subdivision.  The Owners Corporation has a legal obligation to repair and maintain Common Property.  Thus it is the Owners Corporation that has always been responsible for addressing and solving this problem.  Strictly speaking owners should not even repair Common Property themselves without Owners Corporation permission.

Future Actions

Although this problem is both a common one (affecting half the apartments) and a Common Property issue, there has never been a unified approach to getting it solved.  Ad-hoc repairs might just defer the issue for a few months or years.

That the Owners Corporation is responsible for addressing and solving this problem now seems clear.  How the Owners Corporation goes about it is still undecided.  Owners should be aware that repairs might turn out to be expensive and that costs would be shared by all 12 owners (according to the standard liability formula).

Letter of Demand

On 18th July 2011, one owner officially demanded that the Owners Cooperation repair the water leaks and the damage caused by them.  The intent of the letter was to trigger Owners Corporation processes so that the issue can finally be correctly dealt with.

An extract from the letter:

———————————————————————————————————————————

18th July, 2011

Dear Managers,

Re:  Water Leaks and Damage

There has been significant damage done to the ceiling of my lot by water leaking through the building’s roof and terrace. This seems to be an problem that is affecting other lots as well.

It has been established that the roof and terrace where the leaks are occurring are Common Property. It also has been established that the damaged ceiling of my lot is Common Property.

Under the Owners Corporation ACT 2006, the Owners Corporation must repair and maintain the Common Property.

I therefore request that the Owners Corporation take immediate steps to repair this Common Property.

It might also be prudent of the Owners Corporation to seek advice on how the above water leaks can be prevented from recurring.

Regards,

Owner

[Austman]

Austman said:

Despite my making it clear that I didn't want pictures uploaded on to this website, Austman went ahead and did it.

This is the easiest way to introduce a virus to the website and it almost brought us to our knees earlier this year.

I don't have time to extract every picture uploaded on to the site individually so I have deleted Austman's post. 

The next person who uploads pictures to the website will be permanently banned.

Sorry!  But it was not quite so clear at all.  And not even mentioned in the main instruction “How to post to the forum”.  It was a simple a cut-and-paste from our own strata blog that did it.  I thought any pictures would be deleted automatically if they were a problem – from the “can you change the format of the site” comment.  It was not intentional at all.  Apologies.

[Austman]

FlatChatFan said:

Austman said:

 There are no external windows in this bedroom – it does however have another window that opens towards a loft area inside the apartment. 

 

It seems unusual that a bedroom would have been built in proximity to a common area, and especially without a window to the outside. 

Was the original building plan that way or has the owner changed the layout?

Exhaust should not exit to a common area, and even worse,  would not like to be sleeping or changing in a bedroom that has louvre windows to a common area.

It’s a warehouse conversion.  Only the building façade remains with the whole interior new (7 years ago).  Many of the bedrooms in the building do not have a window that opens to the outside.  Many just have a glass panel to a light source (eg from the stairwell/lobby).   It seems a common building practice in building conversions.

This particular apartment is the only one with an openable window to an inside common area.  And it's that way it on the original plans – so it hasn't been changed.  All other apartments have fixed pane obscured glass windows to the common area (ie just to get light).

Perhaps another option for the OC is to replace the louvred window with a fixed pane one (like all other apartments).  The room in concern has another large openable window that opens over the apartment’s interior loft area below. 

And the OC owns the window – so I think it can be done – it’s common property.  The owner might not like it however…

[Austman]

I started a blog for our OC/EC.  We use it instead of a physical notice board.  So in the lobby of our two buildings (totalling 12 apartments)  we just have a small plaque with the blog’s address and that’s it.

The blog has information about the building history, management, rules, services, practical information etc.   It’s early days but we’ve had a few hundred hits.  It’s not something people would read every day!

Owners, tenants, managers, agents, even tradespeople can all read the blog if they want to.  They can also subscribe to it and receive an email if there is a new posting.  They of course don’t need to be physically at the building to read the blog – which is a big advantage over a notice board.

Only the EC can post new topics.  Comments on most blog posts are allowed but they need moderation first.  No-one has commented so far.

We didn’t really want it to be a discussion forum but rather a way the EC could communicate to those that needed to know. 

It seems to have been quite well accepted so far.

[Austman]

Thanks for the answer.  But I can only find regulations (AS1668) that concern bathrooms, kitchens, toilets and laundries.

AS 1668.2. … contaminated air from a sanitary compartment or bathroom must:

(a) Exhaust directly to outside the building by way of ducts; or
(b) Exhaust into the roof space provided

The room concerned is a bedroom.  And the window is a open-able louvred window to the common lobby area (but 1 floor up).

If the occupant simply opened the window and put an electric fan right near it on the inside the apartment, so that air blew out the window into the common lobby area, could that be illegal or a health/safety issue?  Because that's nearly the situation.  Except that with a portable air conditioner the air would be warmer and possibly more humid but not any more 'contaminated '.

For sure it could be a nuisance, but is that enough for the OC to stop it? 

Incidentally a portable air conditioner can be vented to a spare room if you like (that room will  just get hotter/more humid) – they don't need special venting although venting to outside is the best option.

We have written to the occupant requesting the vent be removed immediately.  We stated our concerns over its legality and pointed out the discomfort it could cause to others.  The occupant claims he is doing nothing wrong.

[Austman]

I hope it all works out well.

But I can see the OC's point of view.  Their building insurance would not always cover carpet or paintwork that is inside a lot – that is the lot owner's property and responsibility to insure.   And if the damage was due to an 'Act of God' you might not have any case to claim against the OC – because they might not be liable.  So OCs and OC's insurers often seem to initially say “we do not cover internal lot carpets or paintwork etc”.

But if the OC were liable for the damage to your lot (e.g. due to neglect of common property maintenance), then the OC's building insurance should hopefully pay for the your damage under the OC's liability cover.

[Austman]

sarahs said:

Regarding smoke alarms and fire safety compliance (I read another post but cannot locate it now), we have been advised today that the OC is responsible for all internal smoke alarms in our complex of 26 townhouses.
Of greater concern is that we have been told that annual inspections are mandatory, and one has been arranged by our Strata Manager for this week at a cost of $1200.
I have been an owner here for 6 years, and have NEVER had an inspection. Our SM assures me that we have always had compliance certificates issued.
Just me or does this seem a little suspect…?? Any thoughts as to our position as a member of the EC?

Are you sure?  We have had this requirement (in Victoria) for years and the demarcation is clear – hard wired smoke detectors inside a lot are compulsory (for new buildings) but are the owners responsibility to maintain.  (And also in NSW that is the recommendation of the Land and Property Information). They usually are only hard wired for 240V power – they usually have no other connection to a Fire Panel.  The smoke detectors on common property are however an OC responsibility. 

How has the OC arranged access to all the lots?  That in itself is nearly mission impossible for our OC!

[Austman]

When I have offered to do work for our OC (I'm on the EC) –  our management has stated that I'd need an ABN and Public Liability insurance.

[Austman]

In the AGM notice of a property I own (in the ACT) I noticed the following motion:

Excess

“That any excess payable on an insurance claim is the responsibility of the relevant owner of the unit to which the claim is related.  If an insurance claim relates to the common property then the excess is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation”.

 

Clearly, the OC wanted to document this.

[Author]

Replies