I have 3 questions on this and will ask them separately.
Shortcrust mentioned in her case all units paying for repairs. Jimmy pointed out that unit entitlements should reflect that units with a balcony have (or should have) different unit entitlements.
Question: If u/e do not reflect this benefit to a particular unit or units, can those who have similar (possibly identical) u/e argue that they are being triple disadvantaged? After all, they have no balcony; they have to pay so another owner can enjoy a balcony with no allowance for other owners to also use the balcony; and the share (of some other owners) of the upkeep is identical to the share paid by the guy with the balcony? If this is true, what can non balcony owners do?
It smells like a rort I heard of years ago. A developer keeps the said balcony unit for himself to live in until he sells (or rents out) and all the while his amenity (lifestyle) is subsidised by everyone else. Surely an exclusive use by-law obligating the balcony unit to pay for the R&M in exchange for sole use, would have been the right way to go about this. No?