[rthorburn]

1. Hi Dudley 

OHS certificates 

I think Whale has answered this however I would like to reiterate the fact that your Strata Manager is required by law to ensure the trades they engage do meet the OHS requirements and have the required certifications. 

Whist it is not your responsibility to be checking tradesmen’s credentials, it is definitely a worthwhile means of checking that those who are responsible, are doing what they are supposed to be doing.  When you see someone working on common property, you can also contact the Strata Manager (SM) and ask them to confirm that a particular tradesman is appropriately qualified if you are unable to approach the tradesmen directly yourself.

Strata manager’s vs home tradesmen prices 

I also agree with Whales comments, however if I could phrase it is a bit differently, this might add to your understanding of the differences between strata and personal and give you some suggestions on the areas to focus on to improve things.  

The reason/s for SM’s trade’s prices often being higher than your personal trade’s prices can mainly be due one or more of the following:

1.Quality of Tradesman

SM’s prefer to use those with a higher quality level not only in their standard of workmanship but also in other areas such as OHS compliance, reliability, they need less supervision, higher technical expertise, speed of work, taking care not to interfere with the occupants or damage property, etc.  Bear in mind that SMs are spending other people’s money and this greater accountability on them.  If something goes wrong, the SM wears the responsibility. In the home situation, you are more in control and more likely to take a risk for a cost saving.  As with most things, a higher quality means a higher price as staff and overhead cost more. 

2. Competition for the work

I can’t make judgments for the whole strata management industry, but I have observed instances where some SM’s tend to minimise the practice of obtaining competitive quotation for maintenance work or, if they do, they use a limited pool of quoters.  There could be various reasons for this however, in defence of SMs, obtaining quotes does take time and with SMs usually under pressure to keep their fees down, they may not have allowed enough in their fee agreement for the level of quoting desirable.  For small jobs, the cost of quotations could exceed the savings therefore it might not be warranted.  For large jobs, net savings will be assured if quoted.  Note that these are generalizations and there would be many SMs who are providing an adequate level of competitive quotations for their maintenance work.

3.Corruption and concealed commissions

Any payments to SMs or tradesmen for favored treatment and that are concealed from the owners constitutes corrupt behavior and is illegal.  I suspect it occurs, however over the last 10 years being involved in Executive Committees, I have not witnessed it.  If it does occur, it will lead to higher prices as it all gets added onto the bill.

 

My suggestions to reduce trades’ prices are as follow:

• It is not worth trying to use a lower quality tradesman as in the long run it will cost you far more when things go wrong;
• It would be worthwhile pushing for greater amount of work that is quoted and from a broader pool of tradesmen.  I suggest your EC and SM agree on a procedure depending on the size of the jobs eg less than $1K – single quote; $1K to $5K – three quotes; more than $5K – three quotes with a written scope of work.  Ask to view their list of tradesmen and suggest others be included who you have had good experiences with.  Be aware though that the SM might request additional fees if not in the current agreement and this could be justified.
• The only way you can be sure there is no corrupt behavior is to be able to fully trust your SM and the best way initially is to ask if any concealed commissions are involved. Their answer and the way they answer it will give you an indication.  You might also be able to judge based on responses to questions about using other tradesmen and quoting.  If there is any suspicion, consider changing the SM as soon as you can and agree on a quoting procedure up front with the new SM. 

Make no mistake, if you are going to make improvements, it will involve time and effort on the EC’s part, so in some ways it is “hard”, but I do believe it is worth it. 

I would be interested in your feedback if the above information has been of help to you. 

Regards,

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi giri,

Thanks for the clarifications.  My suggestions are as follows.

The key issue to a achieving a speedy rectification of the problem is the confirmation that the leaks are a result of defective common property.  If the two professional reports state this and the EC has earlier acknowledges this, you have strong case to insist that the work is completed as soon as practicable. The plumber’s report might not carry the same weight as the consultant’s reports.  I say a strong case, but these issues can be complex and the situation can change as more information becomes available and investigations proceed.  EC’s do have an obligation to be absolutely confident in their assessment when authorising expenditure of OC money but at the same time have an obligation to address the matter promptly.

From here on, if you are not doing so already, you should be putting all communications in writing.  You stand to lose money if it is not handled correctly therefore you should treat this in a businesslike manner as you would do in your job.  Verbal communications are fine but all needs to be followed up in writing, email is fine.  If you are still in this position in 12 months time, or sooner, you will need a correspondence file to give to your legal adviser. 

Being common property repairs, the responsibility for arranging the work and payment is with the Owner Corporation.  All written communications therefore need to be to the OC C/- the Strata Manager.  The Strata Manager’s job is to see that the EC then deals with communication.  There is no problem speaking directly with EC member if they are agreeable, however ensure you follow-up in writing to the OC.  Do not pursue EC members individually unless they have been formally nominated to represent the EC on this matter.  If the Strata Manager or others do not return calls, send an email.

If the EC wants to do another report, do not simply allow them to without them giving a satisfactory reason for needing to.  Again, write and ask them to justify the need.  You are the one who is losing as a result of the time it is taking therefore you have a right to receive an explanation.  If the report turns out to be unfavourable, you might need to enlist the help from the previous building consultants to comment.  I guess in theory the EC could continue to request further reports, but they need to have good reasons.  If the reasons are not satisfactory, you can say no.

As a mean of exerting some gentle pressure to progress the matter, I suggest you write immediately (ahead of any further reports) to the OC (in a polite but firm tone) on the basis of the two professional reports confirming a common property defect and include the following:

• State the basis for it being OC’s responsibility, the time taken to date, the disruption is has caused and the costs you have incurred;
• State also that there is potential for further losses if feel that could be the case;
• State that you require the problem be rectified ASAP
• Request a program for the work and the other critical activities dates including quotes received, EC approval, start on site, key disruptions and completion date.
• Ask them to indicate the likely impacts on the tenant so that you can start making arrangements to minimise disruption and any rent adjustment negotiations.

If you are out of Sydney, you will need someone local to represent you , coordinate the tenant and check on the work.  This should probably be your managing agent.  You will need to brief him on what you want from him.

If the above fails, you might consider obtaining legal advice as other mean could be time consuming.

Now, must apologise for being long winded.

Rob T

PS how did the ‘band-aid’ work turn out.  Did the leaks stop?

[rthorburn]

Hi giri,

Could you please clarify, do the reports find that the defect are in the bathroom above your unit or are they in your unit?

Have the reports identified whether the defects are in common property or the lot owners’s property?

For what work are the quotes that you have obtained?

Regards,

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi chak,

My thoughts on the issues raised:

Tiling over existing tiles

This is an acceptable practise for repairing or renewing tiles in existing buildings providing the base tiles are sound and can support the new, the owners are happy to accept the visual result (it will add another approx 10mm layer thickness to the wall and show a thicker edge if visible) and the edges and joints with other elements are finished neatly. It is not regarded as “bad work” in the industry if it is done properly.

This practice has the main advantage of minimising the extremely messy and dusty demolition phase that you have to endure if you are removing the old tiles.  It is also much cheaper due to the cost of disposal of old tile rubble and protecting the apartment from the mess if demolition.

Common property line

Agree with the others who commented and assume they included the new overlying tiles as part of the common property as they are part of the original installation.

Approach from here?

The approach you should take depends on the reasons for the EC wanting to redo the tiles:

1. If the workmanship is unsatisfactory (eg untidy edge finishes, etc), it should be fixed by the builder at their cost;
2. If they don’t like the look of the overlain finish (workmanship is fine) and builder did not get approval for this repair method, then it leans towards the builder to fix.
3. If they don’t like the look of the overlain finish (workmanship is fine) and builder did get approval for this repair method, the builder is off the hook.  If the EC approved it, they might just have to live with it in this case;
4. If they simply don’t like the look of the tiles they have selected and they had approved the tiles before installation, it should have nothing to do with the OC and special levies, common property or not.  They would however need OC approval to change the tiles in this case but not OC to pay.

You should try to find out which of the above applies.  This will be highly relevant to a debate for a motion to raise a special levy

Alos, try to avoid getting another builder involved as this will interfere with your HOW insurance.

Regards,

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi Struggler,

My experience with E/Committees is that they often do not have the skills to know how to move forward on maintenance projects especially if they are complex and large.  Having that initial report, cost estimates and a plan on how to move forward can be all that it takes to get the ball rolling.  This may or may not be the case in your situation

I am happy to consider providing (at no charge) an initial appraisal that you could present to the EC that might help get you started.  If you could perhaps tell me the number of units in the strata plan, your location and the typical types of work that of concern, I can advise further. 

Regards,

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi SOS,

I would love help you with problem.  I am not a legal expert but work in building, contracts and procurement professions and may be able to help.  However, I expect that it may require legal input at some stage to bring about the change.

Would it be possible to provide a little more information?  If you are not comfortable with providing the answers for anonymity reasons, I’ll understand:

• Approximately how many units in the strata scheme;
• Is the caretaker company also the strata manager;
• What % of the unit entitlements does the caretaker company hold;
• are you a member of the executive committee and do the other (non-caretaker) members share your views;
• are you unhappy with the caretakers performance on the existing contract (aside from the extension issue)

 

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi fight4justice,

Regarding the asbestos issue, a OHS risk assessment should be able to detect if the material is in fact asbestos.  It is a simple matter to take some samples and have them lab tested ( maybe a few hundred dollars).  If the EC is planning to do the OHS survey, as you indicate, ask the EC and Strata Manager if they can specifically include sampling and testing as part of the survey. If the consultant can’t do this, then ask if they can engage someone who can. 

Aside from legislation and regulations, I agree that it is important to address the matter.  If you write to the strata manger, I’m sure they will respond positively as ingoring such a request relating to health and safety is getting into negligence territory.

You should be aware however that there are two broad types of asbestos material – ‘friable’ type (often used for pipe insulation) and ‘bound’ type (commonly used as asbestos cement roofing & sheeting). Friable is high risk and bound is much lower risk unless it is cut or sanded.  I suspect it could be the bound type at your place.  Therfore do not panic but be firm in your requests that it be addressed.

Hope this helps.

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi Rita C,

I looked at the wall in question yesterday and I can make the following observations and comments on the failure of the material and your HOW claim: 

Observations: 

1. The plywood material forms an external cladding to a box type structure adjoining one side of the building.  
2. The box structure has a dual function of creating a visual feature to the building plus serves as external walls and roof to parts of the internal building space; 
3. The box structure appears to be built with a lightweight framed substructure, a waterproofing membrane over this substructure and the external plywood cladding system to provide both protection to the waterproof membrane and an attractive external appearance; 
4. The plywood cladding system has failed at numerous locations mainly on the roof and wall directly facing the street due to severe rot in the plywood timber plus numerous cracks and weathering of the protective coating. 

Comments: 

1. I consider the plywood cladding to be a “structural element of the building” (under Reg 71) as it forms part of the external walls and roof of the building (ie the box structure).  It’s function is not only decorative but also is for the proper performance and function of the underlying waterproofing. 
2. In view of the severity of failure of the plywood material since its installation in 2006, I consider that the material used has not been suitable for the purpose (under the Act Part 18B (b)).  
3. Given the above, I believe that you would have strong grounds to appeal against the insurer’s rejection of you claim. The key issue now appears to be to demonstrate to the insurer that the plywood cladding is a “structural element”.  As it is a legal definition, I suggest you engage legal assistance to approach the insurer together with further expert technical advice. 

Please note that all of the above should be read in the context of my more detailed report which is available to you outside of the Forum. 

I trust this has been helpful.

Regards, 

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi Rita C,

Thank for the additional information. 

To start with some technical background, all timber finishes in an external environment will deteriorate over time. The time taken to deteriorate will depend on a number of factors, primarily the exposure severity, construction detailing, timber suitability for the exposure, protective paints or treatment used (if any) and level of maintenance following completion.  Responsibilities for getting these right fall with the architect, the builder and the owner, depending on at what point you are in the building life cycle. 

The reason/s for the failure as you describe could be attributed to any of, or a combination of the above factors and responsibilities and really would need further investigation to narrow it down.  It can become quite complex with many arguments and counter arguments. However, the severity of deterioration does suggest that the timber material was unsuitable for the weather exposure as one could expect the material not to be that critically dependant on the protecting coating, if any. 

If the insurer is saying that it is a maintenance issue, the task is to demonstrate that the wrong material was used in construction and that this was the builder’s responsibility (and not that of the architect). 

That said, pursuing a claim may involve time and money and this needs to be weighed up against the cost of replacing or repairing the material.  

I am happy to give you an opinion (at no charge) on whether it is worth further pursuing a claim, but I would need to examine the documentation and the site to do this.  I am contactable via our website at http://www.thorburnassociates.com.au . 

Regards, 

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi Rita C,

 

I am interested in this issue as I work in the industry, however I’m sure it has some complexities to it that might prevent its resolution through the forum.  Just a couple of questions to narrow down the issue:

1. how long since the work was completed?
2. who selected (or specified) the panelling material –  the architect, the builder or someone else such as an owner?
3. did the timber material have, or have specified, a protective paint or clear coating or treatment?
4. Were you left with any instructions from the builder regarding ongoing maintenance, such as repainting?
5. Do you recollect any discussion or query from the builder or architect on the issue prior to installing it?
6. was there any change to the original design that might have meant that the original design intent was not met? Eg the wall location changed or the roof line changed that might have lead to more weather exposure?

If you can answer the above, I might be able to assist or at least help clarify why it has been rejected.

 

Regards,

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi ,

 

If the OC is authorising and managing the works then they are responsible for the builders actions, damage and errors.  How they resolve that with the builder is a matter for the contract in place with the builder (as mentioned by another commenter).  If it is excluded from the building contract, it may be a cost to the OC, but it should not be a cost to you as the individual owner.

I suggest you write to the OC/strata manager to request its rectification.  It should not be a cost to you or your insurer. If they refuse, then you should obtain the reasons (in writing) so that you can take it further.

 

Regards,

 

Rob T

[rthorburn]

Hi Sarah,

I assume that you are a tenant under a lease agreement with the landlord perhaps via an agent.  The lease agreement is very likley not to involve the Owners Corporation, except for the fact that you will need to abide with the By Laws.

 

I suggest that you read the lease thoroughly.  Do not be afraid to read it. If it does not say that you need to remove furniture at your cost in such situations, then ask the landlord/agent where in the lease it requires you to do this.  If they can show clearly that it is your responsibility, then you will need to comply.  If it does not, then you should challenge it and refuse to comply with their request unless they can demonstrate it is in the lease.

 

Please remember, the lease (or the contract governs), not comment or hearsay.  If it is unclear, ask for clarification from the landlord, not the OC as you have no contractual relationship with them.

 

I would suspect, although not certain without reading the lease, that you would be required to provide access only, but not to incur cost of furniture relocations.

 

Good Luck,

 

Rob

[Author]

Replies