Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I believe that may depend on the original state of the doors. That is, if the doors originally had peek holes and metal strikers. In the model by laws it does state that locks and locking mechanisms are the responsibility of the owners.
It also states that the only changes that can be made are those that provide for security. So peepholes etc would probably come under that. So if past owners have included things such as deadlocks, peepholes and any other features that provide them with secure locks and added security then it is my belief that these are additional and therefore the owners responsibility.
Unless of course the by laws of the complex state otherwise.
Is the switch for this light actually inside your unit? If so you would have control over this light and presumably be paying the bill for it. Even though it is on a walkway, if you have the control and not the OC, I would think you would be responsible for changing the light bulb.
I have a light outside my front door, on the wall which is common property. The switch is inside my place. Though I can’t change this light, or remove it without permission, I have never thought of it as anything but my responsibility to change the light bulb.
As long we you are not changing the shower recess in anyway, ie the same tiles, the same area, the same place, the same everything.
If you wanted to change anything in this area it could be taken as a renovation. I am in a townhouse complex and we had a by law drawn up to make owners responsible for their shower recesses and bathrooms/internal plumbing as any problems with leaking pipes only affects their own internal space. That way, owners hopefully will not only maintain their bathrooms, so it doesn’t leak, but they can renovate and update their bathroom (without major plumbing changes which may need OC consideration). There was a perceived expectation in this complex that the OC would pay for repairs, and then put in better fixtures and fittings!
I also have a shower recess problem and am glad we have the above by law as I can change the tiles and do a “reno” on the bathroom without permission, only advising the OC of work to be carried out within the guidelines of the complex rules and regs.
Would really like to know the definition of extending existing plumbing?
I beleive in most strata plans, not only the plumbing but the tiles are considered common property. The problem is, people want to be able to renovate however they like and have someone else pay for the consequences. So, they want to replace the tiles made in China with the Italian marble tiles. But when something goes wrong, they want someone else to pay to replace the marble tiles that they did not get permission for when they did their bathroom renovation.
This is exactly why we had a by law drawn up that made the tiles and the maintenance of bathroom plumbing the responsibility of the owners. Owners wanted to be able to renovate to their hearts content, then have the OC pay for replacement/repairs if it all goes awry. Now they can put down what ever tiles they want and they will forever be responsible for it, but they still can’t change where the plumbing is or move walls etc maintaining the structural integrity of the units (we hope) without seeking approval.
If there was nothing wrong with your bathrooms, and you just wanted to improve, then it is a renovation and really to your benefit so you should be responsible. If it was a repair, then the OC would be responsible but I believe they only have to replace like with like so if you have 100 x 100 lime green tiles, they only have to find similar and then they would be responsible for ever. If you wanted a change with the repair ie 200 x 200 then they may be considered a renovation.
A nice bathroom really does sell a place. So if it was me, I would apologise profusely, and agree to the terms (by-law) and be pleased to have the place you want to live in and that someone else will appreciate in the future.
If a owner/resident makes a complaint about a matter that the EC can substantiate or knows of themselves then, in this complex, that is where the letter stating that “it has come to the attention of the EC that…..” comes in. The EC would know if someone is parking where they shouldn’t so if an owner says that red car is there every second day surely the members of the EC would also be aware and should take action. And I personally believe that in these circumstances the name of the resident who prompted the EC to take action need not be made public.
Was it the same real estate agent for both units? If so there would seem to be a pattern of buyers being told that parking on common property/visitors car parks is OK. Personally, if it was the same agency, I would send off a letter saying that “… the new owners said they were lead to believe that it was OK to use these areas as additional parking, however we find it hard to believe that a reputable real estate agency would advise this. However, in future with any sales in this complex, please ensure that potential buyers are clearly made aware that they are only have the parking/garage attached to/under the unit they are purchasing”.
If it was two different agencies then it may be that the buyers only heard what they wanted to hear. This has obviously occurred here in this complex due to the number of owners/residents who are shocked when we tell them they can’t park anywhere except their own garages. Some still displaying shock years after moving in. Perhaps the agents say “…and of course you have visitors parking next door to you” which the buyer hears as “….and of course you have parking next door to you”. And even if they did hear the visitors part, they probably think it is only visitors parking if visitors are there. So if they’re not there then its just parking….something our residents try over and over again.
This is what I hate most about strata living. Those owners who think that a problem is the OC’s problem so if it gets really bad it doesn’t matter because it isn’t out of their pocket.
We have had this problem here. It is because of this type of situation we have had by-laws drawn up to protect the OC and therefore all owners by making owners responsible for their own units. You should see how quickly an owner attends to a problem when they have to pay for it all themselves.
If this owner who did not report the problem for a year was also on the EC, and this problem became worse and therefore would cost the OC more money that if first reported and acted on, then I believe the owner should have to contribute to repairs. Do you have anything in writing where this owner says they noticed this problem for the previous year? We are very lucky here in that the owners who have in the past finally reported a problem that had been evident for years, have always put the fact that they had watched the deterioration of the common property in their unit in writing. Gold!
It is the Owners Corp’s responsibility to maintain common property. The OC is all owners, not just the EC. Many people think it is one and the same – still. So an owner as a member of the OC reports the problem to the EC who should then act upon it. But if this owner is on the EC, and as an owner is on the OC and done nothing about it, there has to be some ownership of this problem by this owner. But even if they did report it, as a member of the EC this owner should have followed up!
We had one of those sinking fund forecasts done. The report did point out some things that we hadn’t considered. But it also included items that were not common property ie items that were considered owners responsibility.
So where does a complex stand if a forecasts states that you have to increase levies for repairs to areas of the complex that are not common property?
Here’s a thought – if buildings were built to the building codes and properly checked onlong the way and only signed off my councils if they actually do comply then there would be little need for lawyers. All any of us would encounter would be the occasional settling crack in the walls and a few other minor rectifications.
Instead, we have story after story of people battling to get major recitifications done. My own complex was found to not meet BCA standards when we had an insurance claim made. The insurance company inspected the complex and found numerous items that did not meet BCA. Some were fixable, others were so big it could not be rectified! Letters to the builder, drafted my an owner who was a lawyer, did little. We ended up having to raise a special levy to cover costs in a new complex to rectify what we could so our insurer would continue to insure us! We still went after the builder but to no avail. The paperword did not show who actually signed off the building. So there we were, in a new complex, and $10,000 out of pocket.
There are many stories out there. And with a two year warranty on buildings now, I would definitely not buy into a new complex, nor anything new for that matter! Even cars come with a 3 – 5 year warranty these days. But your home – apparently 2 will do. Perhaps developers who do the right thing could offer extended warranties on their new builds to get the people in?
I personally don’t think it is a bad idea to have the EC arrange an engineer. In my complex, we generally use the one guy for all our engineering concerns. He knows the complex, he knows what problems we have had and what we have had to have corrected in the past. Another engineer coming into the complex, and not being aware of the past history, may see it in another way.
So perhaps you should have written into the by law that the EC uses the one engineer where ever possible to maintain some consistency in recommendations.