Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
My question is – Is there ever a circumstance where a portion of the roof slab itself, which covers the whole building, has ownership consigned to an individual lot owner.
What would motivate anyone to force this cost on to a lot owner. Is winning that important?
Our strata plan shows a top elevation of each lot. While it never seemed important before – do other strata plans show a side elevation?
03/01/2022 at 9:52 am in reply to: Living conditions made intolerable by common property additions #60708Thank you all for your thoughts. We will continue with temperature monitoring through this summer and then re visit the issue with the OC. With the recorded facts we can firstly hope for a better outcome.
27/12/2021 at 3:56 pm in reply to: Living conditions made intolerable by common property additions #60656Somewhere in the SSMA I recall reading that a CP addition must not impact the livability of an individuals lot.
I just hope there is some protection as there should morally be.
What I don’t want is the intolerable heat. The portico addition was about 70k and it is useful for the owners in general and does look good unless you are in our circumstance. The committee response so far has amounted to suck it up!
Removing it would restore our amenity to pre portico and would be an acceptable outcome. I think the owners – in whatever way – should restore our livability! Their decision took it away after all.
Maybe facilitate and pay for a very good A/C would be immediate ASAP relief. As mentioned we have now gone through this for six summers – its time someone cared. I don’t think WE should be criticized which is the narrative from the SC so far.
One thing I do know is that the OC decision has made life very difficult for my wife and myself. We did intend to live out our lives in our perfect apartment in which we have invested heavily. Being an almost 80 yo this dilemma is one I could have done without.
We will NOT move out and leave the problem to others.
23/12/2021 at 6:45 pm in reply to: Living conditions made intolerable by common property additions #60640Thanks Jimmy T
We are 1st level in a west facing 7 level block Circa 1970 . There are two 1st level west facing apartments. Below us was an internal entry foyer. Our apartment got pretty warm in hot months and our strata OC had prevented us from installing an A/C as any such installation must be wholly within the lot. We don’t have a balcony for the outdoor unit. We have 20 years here and we had decided we could tolerate the summer heat we were experiencing OK.
About 6 years ago, and despite our protests, the OC went ahead and added to our common property, a front portico. The roof structure is at our lounge-room floor level and projects 3m out front. We have lost the visual of our quite nice front gardens BUT as a consequence of the roof, we now have temperatures at the front of our apartment (which we have logged) on hot days 20 to 30 percent higher than pre portico. So already this summer we have had 50 degrees C, as opposed to other west facing apartments (we have a temperature logger on a 4th floor west facing apartment) reading 40 degrees C. The math changes, – breeze or no breeze etc..
That reading on a day when outside BOM temp was 32 degrees.
The situation heat is now intolerable. Some temperatures recorded last summer were just under 70 degrees C. It is referred to as heat pooling and we have it in spades. Last and the summers before we have had to leave our apartment as health became priority. We know the portico addition is the culprit!
Our SC have been unhelpful. We have updated the temperature loggers and they now post a weekly report of temperatures read every 5 minutes in 3 locations. We now have our proof and will proceed with a claim in the first quarter of 2022.
Long story – but you did ask!
Appreciated your comments. For the first NCAT hearing I had aimed up at the OC’s unsatisfactory retro approval and the senior member listened and allowed the perpetrator to be included in my claims. Second hearing and a different member! Circumstance has now given the respondents more time for response which will have scant regard for the property. No, I have not gone down the lawyer road. I am batting for the OC yet it is they who, through the Chair – no meetings for authority – have lawyer-ed up to oppose my claims. I have tried not to get personal at all and this may have been my biggest mistake. I am almost certain the details of this have not gone outside of the (3) SC and two of them may not know the real situation. I would dearly like to see NCAT arrive at correct decisions but I am not going into debt for it.
-
AuthorReplies