[Garbla]

Thank you for your response.

I would have thought that a window key locked in the fully closed position (0 cm) satisfies the requirement that it not be open more than 12.5 cm when children are present, given that another window already fulfills the function of ventilation and it has a separate key lock limiting the opening to 12.5 cm (or less).

I don’t think that the argument that a window key locked in the fully closed position could be unlocked and then opened more than 12.5 cm is valid. The same argument can be applied to a window that has a key lock preventing it from being opened more than 12.5 cm, if someone uses the key to unlock that lock, then that window can be opened more than 12.5 cm.

Furthermore, it is probably more difficult for a child to unlock & open a double-hung window which is key locked at the meeting rails than one which is key locked lower down on one of the stiles to the lower sash.

In any event, the key should not be where a child can access it and use it to open the lock (i.e. don’t leave the key in the lock or on the window sill.)

We are still of the view that only one window in each room needs to be fitted with an additional key lock set at a maximum opening of 12.5 cm.

Is there any reason that we are legally required to fit all windows in a room (where more than one window is present) with additional child proof locks which limit the opening to 12.5 cm when children are present, given that the windows already have key (child proof) locks on the meeting rails set in the fully closed position? 

Note that we do not want to permanently lock our windows and that children are infrequent visitors, although this latter point is probably irrelevant.

[Garbla]

A final word…….

Kiwipaul, I take on board what you say. Insurance is not my area of expertise & what I previously said may be a little simplistic.

About 15 years ago an investment unit I owned in an older building burnt out. Fortunately no-one was injured. The OC was self managed & OC insurances were organised by insurance brokers. I had landlords insurance – through the same firm of insurance brokers. The damage was extensive, took quite some time to properly repair & of course the unit could not be occupied during this time.

The units in the building were not fitted with fire-rated entry doors & the entry door to the unit was left open by the tenants as they escaped. This resulted in significant smoke damage to the common stairwell & also the units above as escaping occupants also left the doors to these units open.  Between the OC insurance & the Landlord insurance the repairs to my unit were fully covered, as was the rent loss. The smoke damage to the stairwell was covered by the OC insurance.

I cannot recall if the smoke damage to upstairs units was covered by the OC insurance (although I think that walls/ceilings were covered but carpets were not). My tenants did not have contents insurance & some of the occupants of units above were uninsured.

If I did not have Landlords insurance my position would have been parlous & I would probably have had to sell the unit.

After this event the OC took it upon itself to have fire rated doors fitted to all units & to have a hard wired, interconnected smoke alarm system installed. An interesting point here is that the OC insurance paid for the fire-rated door to the unit which had had the fire even though the door only had smoke damage. 

Sorry if this has been a little long winded but I think that it demonstrates the need to be properly insured for both owners & occupants.

[Garbla]

Just a suggestion to avoid the sort of problems encountered in this topic.

If possible, as an owner occupier take out contents insurance with the same company with which the OC has the building (common property) insured & check with the insurance company that there is nothing excluded from both policies. Be careful about bathrooms, kitchens & the like which are not original (& hence not included in common property).

For investors there should be some good ‘Landlord Packs’ available which will cover fixtures, fittings, as well as bathrooms, kitchens etc. which are not original – & therefore not covered by the OC insurance. Landlord Packs also cover loss of rent while the unit cannot be occupied & some cover tenant damage & non-payment of rent (when I last checked, which was admittedly some years ago).

[Garbla]

The below is copied from the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2014 Volume 1. While this clause (D2.24) appears to have come into being in the BCA 2013 the content was largely present in earlier versions in clause D2.16.

(Note that “Class 2” buildings are Residential Flat Buildings)

“D2.24 Protection of openable windows

(a) A window opening must be provided with protection, if the floor below the window is 2 m or more above the surface beneath in—

         (i) a bedroom in a Class 2 or 3 building or Class 4 part of a building; or

         (ii) a Class 9b early childhood centre.

 

(b) Where the lowest level of the window opening is less than 1.7 m above the floor, a window opening covered by (a) must comply with the following:

         (i) The openable portion of the window must be protected with—

                       (A) a device capable of restricting the window opening; or

                       (B) a screen with secure fittings.

         (ii) A device or screen required by (i) must—

                       (A) not permit a 125 mm sphere to pass through the window opening or screen; and

                       (B) resist an outward horizontal action of 250 N against the—

                                         (aa) window restrained by a device; or

                                         (bb) screen protecting the opening; and

                       (C) have a child resistant release mechanism if the screen or device is able to be removed, unlocked or overridden.

 

(c) A barrier with a height not less than 865 mm above the floor is required to an openable window—

         (i) in addition to window protection, when a child resistant release mechanism is required by (b)(ii)(C); and

         (ii) where the floor below the window is 4 m or more above the surface beneath if the window is not covered by (a).

 

(d) A barrier covered by (c) must not—

         (i) permit a 125 mm sphere to pass through it; and

         (ii) have any horizontal or near horizontal elements between 150 mm and 760 mm above the floor that facilitate climbing.”

I hope that this helps.

[Garbla]

Further to my previous post on this matter it would be useful to know the following:-

1.  When was the building built?

• If construction was completed less than 7 years* prior to the 2011 repair works, then the Owners Corporation (OC) should have required that the original builder effect any necessary repairs in 2011. Were the 2011 repairs of this nature?
• If the 7 year warranty period has lapsed between 2011 & now and the plumber was carrying out repairs on behalf of the original builder I would recommend checking with OFT where the responsibilities sit.
• If construction was completed more than 7 years* prior to the discovery & reporting of the defects which resulted in the need to carry out the 2011 repair works, then the original builder cannot be held responsible. However, the plumbing contractor is responsible for his work for 7 years* from the date he carried out the repair works, that is until 2018.

2.  What was the full extent of damage due to the leak in 2011?

3.  What is the full extent of damage due to the leak in 2014?

Inspection for moisture penetration should include all adjacent surfaces in the unit with the leak & in adjoining units on the same level (walls & floors – including inside built-in wardrobes & the like). On the level below ceilings & walls (including inside built-in wardrobes & the like) should be inspected.

 

* Important Note:

In NSW for building works completed prior to February 2012 a 7 year warranty on all residential building works applies. After this date the warranty period has been broken into 6 years for structural & 2 years for non-structural. This was to bring the warranty period into line with Home Owners Warranty Insurance (HOWI). In my opinion it would have made far more sense to bring the HOWI into line with the 7 year statutory warranty – however that was not to be. In my opinion the current warranty periods are woefully inadequate and will result in a diminution in the quality of the built environment (already quite low in many cases).

 

The information provided here is based upon the building being in NSW.

[Garbla]

It seems to me that there may not have been adequate investigation. 

Even with a waterproofing additive I would not rely solely on grouting (or regrouting) as a satisfactory preventative measure where there are water penetration issues.

Water penetration of the unit below could be due to:-

1.  Leaking pipes (water supply &/or drainage),

2.  Failed waterproof membrane (improperly applied or damaged)

Prior to tiling there should be a properly designed & applied code compliant waterproofing system forming a continuous membrane applied to the floor & walls of not only the shower recess (including any hobs, dips or recesses) but  also the entire bathroom / en-suite floor. While wall areas (other than the shower 1800mm +) are only required to have waterproofing to a relatively small height adjacent to the floor and other horizontal surfaces, it is generally best to waterproof to a greater height, such as door height, because some occupants can splash water all over the place.

Any pipes or wastes penetrating the membrane must also be properly waterproofed at the junctions where they penetrate the membrane.

While there are some products (eg. a particular paving sealer which I probably shouldn’t name) which can do a reasonable job of waterproofing wet areas when applied as per manufacturers recommendations to the tiled surface this is not the best approach. 

I suggest that the problem be properly investigated before acting.

[Garbla]

The intent of the Fire Order is that the fly screen doors be removed & not reinstalled or replaced with something similar.

Depending upon how it is constructed & installed a fly screen door may:-

1.  Reduce the unobstructed width of the doorway to the unit.

2.  Act to reduce / obstruct the width of the escape route.

3.  Have a locking system that prevents escape without a key (not a good idea in an emergency situation).

[Garbla]

This is an interesting one Larry.

What do you think Jimmy?

[Garbla]

A water service charge is a component of each account that I received from Sydney Water (about $40.00). It is not clear to me whether this is a charge per unit or per water meter. If it is per water meter and the water supply to a number of units runs from this one meter, then it would appear that there is an overall saving to each unit, with one only service charge divided between them all as opposed to a service charge per unit. The water usage charge is then presumably divided between all units connected to this one meter – presumably on a unit entitlement basis.

While the costs might not be perfectly fairly divided as there is no way of knowing exactly how much water each unit uses, nonetheless the savings are likely worthwhile as each $40  saved equates to a significant amount of water.

 

An area where savings may be substantially more significant is that of gas meters and gas usage –  particularly if the gas is only used for cooking. I regularly receive gas bills of less than $50 and the charge just to have the gas meter sitting there is in excess of $40. I am aware of at least one block of units where the Owners Corporation and all units are attached to  the one meter.  As gas bills are quarterly there is a saving in excess of $160 per annum for each gas meter that is not there. Of course if anyone has gas heating the potential for abuse of such a communal gas supply system exists. But in the  block of units that I’m aware of the owners come out well ahead in terms of gas supply costs.

[Garbla]

The owner of a ground floor unit in an older building (1930’s) removed the floor coverings – cork on masonite sheeting from the kitchen area & carpet from all other rooms (excepting the bathroom which remains tiled). This was done to expose, sand & clear finish the timber floor, & the result is visually attractive. However in a few locations floor boards are squeaking, & at one point in the kitchen the noise from this is quite excessive.

The tenant is complaining and the owner wishes to have it fixed but wants the owners corporation to pay for this work. The noise is not transmitted to any other units.

Given that this problem did not exist prior to the floor coverings being removed & the timber floor being exposed who should pay – the owner who has carried out the work or the owners corporation?

[Author]

Replies