Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am surprised that the copper pipes have corroded to the extent of needing replacement, even in a 70’s building unless its down to poor workmanship in the installation. The steel pipes not surprising. For the copper, there could be underlying problems that have caused early failure such as expansion and contraction, structural issues, dissimilar metals in contact with copper. Given the likely high cost of replacement, I would suggest that you initially have an expert report on the reasons for early failure and recommended approach to rectifications before launching into replacement. A hydraulics engineer or very experienced plumber would be the type of expert to talk to.
Providing that your “building consultants/engineers” are appropriately qualified, they generally have the professional expertise to properly advise, make recommendations, prepare and manage such contracts on your behalf. By appropriately qualified, I mean the person who is responsible for providing the service to you must have reached a status or grade within their relevant peak professional organisation that qualifies them for this type of work. For example, an engineer should have ‘chartered’ status under Engineers Australia, architects should be ‘registered’ under the Australian Institute of Architects or other equivalent memberships from other peak professional organisations. Simply being a paid up member of such an organisation would not be adequate qualification to provide the required services.
In addition, you should also ask your “building consultants/engineers” to demonstrate to your satisfaction that they are appropriately qualified to prepare and manage the contract by providing their qualifications, experience and references on similar work completed. If you are not confident that they are qualified after doing this, you should consider using an alternative consultant/engineer or consider the legal option.
Thanks whoopi. Would be very interested to hear.
I’m not a huge fan of private certification, but I believe this cladding has been used on commercial buildings before the advent of private certification.
Whoopi, may I ask if your legal costs were awarded in the orders.
Yes. I agree.
Depending on the age of the building and current fire protection measures, Council could include a Fire Upgrade Order to the whole of the building as part of the DA approval conditions for your extension. How that would be paid for, if it occured, needs to be considered in the planning.
The timing of repairs needs to be determined according to factors such as risk of personal injury, risk of damage to property, level of inconvenience and funding available, etc. If there was significant risk of personal injury, for example, the repairs should be treated with the utmost urgency and all stops removed to make happen (including an urgent special levy and borrowing if a levy is not possible).
If the problem is only causing inconvenience only, then the repairs should be slotted into the repairs and maintenance programme according to priorities against other works and funding availability.
The sale of one’s apartment in itself should not be a factor in determining the timing of works. Perhaps the Lot Owner might consider timing the sale around the repairs and maintenance schedule rather than the other way around. However, the OC does need to be able demonstrate that it is competently managing all repairs along the lines that I have outlined above.
Hi excathedra,
Your idea is an excellent one but its implementation could be difficult.
Declaring “conflicts of interest” is now standard practice in large organization (as you are probably aware). I have been involved in tender evaluation committee meetings for Government contracts that have a probity auditor who asks that question and minute the responses at the commencement of each meeting.
The concept of conflicting or competing interests is however a difficult one the grasp for many people especially if they do not have experience with it. Most people can understand the obvious examples, but there are many situations that most people would not see as conflicting or competing. Businesses send staff to training on the subject to give them the required level of understanding.
Therefore, for your proposal to work, I think you will need to somehow educate the Committee through a training session of some kind. I’m sure there are courses for this however I sure there will be resistance and trivialization of the idea.
I think I like the idea of ‘competing’ rather than’ conflicting’ as it has softer implication.
Definitely give it a go and good luck with it. Keep us posted on your progress.
Regards,
Rob T
Hi Jimmy,
I agree with all of your comment except for one point. I feel that the Memorandum is fairly clear on the responsibility for water damage to another Lot by a failure of common property. Once it is established that the leak is due to common property failure (aside from the approved vs unapproved complication), then Memorandum clause 2.17 d. would apply:
“2.17 Plumbing (includes bathroom, kitchen and laundry) – OC responsibility
d. Damage to unit after water leak when OC effecting a repair.”
Clause 2.18 m as you refer to as being applicable:
“2.18 Plumbing (includes bathroom, kitchen and laundry) – Owners responsibility
m. Damage to a lot caused by any water leak mentioned above, as a result of the problem itself.”would not in fact be applicable in this case as this is referring to water damage resulting from Owners responsibility items.
Does this sound right or am I misinterpreting 2.17 d? I assume “damage to unit” in 2.17d. means damage to any Lot be it the one with the leak or the one below.
Regards,
Rob T
Hi Whale,
I am interested in your example given. To add some perspecive to it, would you be able to say the building age and number of Lots in your strata plan.
Thanks,
Rob T
Hi Willard,
I’d suggest also making a complaint to Sydney Water as they have the authority for sewerage matters. They won’t fix it in this case as I agree it is very likley the owners responsibility, but they might be able to issue some form of ‘notice to comply’ on the owners.
For your information, the owners have responsibility for their pipe all the way to the connection to the main in the street. This responsibility is often misunderstood by owners and there is a misconception that it becomes Sydney Water responsibility when it leave the owners property.
Good Luck,
Rob T
I would suggest initially having a read of the insurance policy document. I know that they are very wordy but I am uncomfortable leaving it to insurers alone to make a ruling.
Whale, that is interesting what you say about a likley exclusion of the gradual occurrence. I do not have experience in the area and cannot comment apart from I can see some logic behind it as it’s purpose could be to exclude claims that are a result of a lack of maintenance at the appropriate time. In this case however, sure, it has been a gradual leak but if it was not detectable (due to the false ceiling), you might have a case to argue with the insurers
A false ceiling would be regarded an acceptable structure to build within your Lot, although the insurer might argue that an inspection panel should have been provided to check for the very problem that has occurred.
Is it possible that the false ceiling was installed for the purpose of concealing the staining caused by the leak? If so, then you may choose not to reinstate the false ceiling, in which case all work will be OC responsibility.
At the risk of stating the obvious, could I stress to you that the most important issue for you, in my view, is not who pays for the false ceiling, it is will the cause of the water leak be permanently fixed?
Regards,
Rob T
Hi giri,
I’m sorry, I understood that the reports had confirmed the leaks were due to defective common property.
You really need to establish if it is or is not. This could be why the EC is deliberating. If you haven’t already done so, have a look at the Inst. of Strata Title Management Guide to Common Property. If that’s not any help, ask the building consultant you engaged to advise.
I would be happy to help further but I would really need to have a look at the details to advise further.
Regards,
RobT
Hi peterpete,
From how you describe it, the unit below will still need to support part of the wall that is remaining just below 1st floor level and possibly support the floor depending which way the floor joists run. Therefore a beam may still be required for the bottom unit work, and a larger one than the upper one if it is supporting the floor. There could also be some fire rating work to the 1st floor by the bottom floor owner.
Therefore there might not be a great advantage to you by doing the work together, but it will depend on the full details being revealed. I do feel however that tying your work to another owner’s work will introduce a layer of complications that I think you don’t need. For me in that situation, I would prefer to push on and get it done my way and avoid all the issues that arise when having to deal with another player.
I dont think there is a mechanism at present that can force an owner to agree to supch changes, but I could be wrong.
I assume that you are aware that both owners would require Councill approval (for structural work) and OC approval (for work to Common Property).
Regards,
Rob T