Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
First, make sure the leak has been fixed. If it was the other owner’s property that caused the leak (which seems to be the case), then the other owner is responsible. But if it was common property that caused the leak, then the OC is responsible.
If it is only paint that is damaged then it is your responsibility to repair it. But if the ceiling itself is damaged, that would be common property and therefore the OC’s responsibility to repair.
Either your own insurance or the OC’s building insurance should cover the painting and or repair costs. If it is only painting then any insurance excess would have to be paid by you.
Of course, you could demand payment of the painting costs or even any excess costs from the other owner. I’ve tried this in the past – but if the other owner refuses to pay, you have to start legal action against the other owner.
The pipe itself may very well be private property (i.e. the lot owner's responsibility to maintain and repair).
However, I think repairing the damage caused by the water from the pipe to Common Property is still the OC's responsibility.
The lot owner's contents insurance might cover repairs to the pipe (mine does). But the owner might not have contents insurance as it's not compulsory. The OC's compulsory building insurance should cover repairs to the Common Property at least. It then becomes the OC's insurance company's decision to decide to try to recover these costs from the lot owner.
Our compulsory building insurance covers a lot more than just Common Property – some of lot contents are covered too, e.g: “Proprietor's fixtures, fittings and improvements which form part of the building”.
In Victoria at least, the OC is responsible for the repair and maintenance of Common Property regardless of why the repair or maintenance is needed.
Of course the OC can try to claim the costs of a repair on another party.
In this case, as the damage is accidental and caused by a water pipe 'burst', my guess is that one party's insurance company will pay (most probably the OC's building insurance).
This has been the situation, for similar incidents, a few times in my building.
staticsan said:
Austman said:
Would it be possible to post version one of the notes here (minus names/places etc of course)? I think it's a tricky exercise but can see the merits. I'm quite sure our noisy neighbour is not realising the problems he is causing others.
Here is what I posted on the noticeboard for the second problem:
Some unit in this stairwell is leaving their exhaust fan on all night. Please be considerate of your neighbours. The sound of it carries a very long way at night. Thank you.
It was handwritten in a thick marker. Within a day, some had scratched out “Some unit” and written in the offending Unit number. About 4 days later, I write on the bottom in a different colour: “Yeah: this means PLEASE DON'T”.
The fan still runs for hours some evenings, but almost never past midnight.
I have, of course, tried that. It might work sometimes, but mostly (in my experience) it does nothing . Sadly, it's because 'unreasonable' residents don't tend to respond to reasonable requests.
Our 'problem' resident (a problem for many in the building – with some complaining in writing to the OC manager) needed a visit from the police at 04:50 the other week.
We know the laws (strata, council, state) but it is still a difficult issue to solve.
And nearly two weeks later… nothing…
With many years of experience in managing strata plans, I know it can be difficult.
Sadly, I know that there are 'problem' residents who will not respond to reasonable requests. And not to 'honey'.
And let's face it , most reasonable people don't tend to make the problem in the first place. It's the usually the unreasonable people that are the problem!
If being nice, fair and reasonable solved all our problems we would not policing or laws on strata living. But alas, we sure need them
A very interesting document. I wish there was something similar here in Victoria. I pointed out the document to our strata manager. His reaction was (jokingly) that it would cost strata management firms jobs, because it simplified many issues.
staticsan said:
I should add that the notes were very carefully worded and took me a few days to think about. The key was to unambigiuously address the adverse effects of the noise, not to criticise the people making the noise. I didn't want any reason for them to take offense and to say “screw you, I'll do what I like” but rather to say “oh, I never realized I was doing that, how terrible”.
Sounds a good approach. Would it be possible to post version one of the notes here (minus names/places etc of course)? I think it's a tricky exercise but can see the merits. I'm quite sure our noisy neighbour is not realising the problems he is causing others.
It can be a tricky situation. We have often have the same problem. Currently an owner-occupier is causing noise issues for several neighbours (running, stomping, loud music, noisy visitors, noisy exhaust fans left on all night etc). I'm sure it's mostly just carelessness. We have pointed out the issue a few times. All is good for a week or two and then the issue returns.
I wish the same were being done in Victoria! It’s such a fundamental and important question – what is and what isn’t Common Property?
Mr Strata said:
2. Safety – if your building was designed and built with specific lighting to comply with particular BCA requirements, then the OC is taking a massive amount of liability in altering this lighting. This could cause problems with the oc's public liability insurance cover.
Could you tell us more about this? That the BCA has particular requirements in this area?
We have a similar issue in our 12 apartment building (in inner Melbourne). The house lights were initially on all night. Some apartments have frosted glass windows (including some bedrooms) to the building's stairwell, which is also a light well. This gives those apartments extra light in daylight hours but some residents didn't want the light from the house lights at night. Some (myself included) fitted blackout blinds on these windows. Some residents didn't like the waste of electricity.
We decided to adjust the house lights timer to be on from dusk to 10pm. There are some emergency lights too that are on 24/7 that give a reasonable light level after 10pm.
One concern was the liability issue – if the OC could be sued if someone tripped in the stairwell after 10pm. Does the OC have a legal responsibility to keep the stairwells illuminated? We have about 18 house lights and to put proximity sensors on all of them would be quite expensive – and possibly even more annoying to the residents with the frosted glass windows – because lights would be going on and off at any hour during the night.
The Building Code of Australia has increased sound insulation requirements for “Walls between a bathroom, laundry or kitchen and a habitable room in adjoining dwelling”.
So if the renovation needs to comply with the BCA, the Owners Corporation should be able check that the increased sound insulation standard has been applied.
A reasonable starting point is here:
https://www.ocv.org.au/pdfs/API_Article_Dec07.pdf
The rules can vary from state to state (or territory) but all interior decorating should be OK.
And here is the rule from my council:
https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/Planning–Building/Building-services/Building-Applications/
Note the second point.
But perhaps this varies from council to council.
Hi JimmyT,
You are quite correct. Here in inner Melbourne a building permit is required for interior renovations too, but only for:
“Internal work to your house that requires windows or walls to be moved or altered”.
But all other interior renovations do not need council approval. So new kitchens, bathrooms, flooring etc do not need it. It's very different for exterior renovations!