#17921
kiwipaul
Flatchatter

    @Whale said:

    …. because IF the pergola’s actually been authorised by the Owners Corporation (O/C) by way of Special Resolution (to add to the Common Property) and the resultant By-Law is silent on the subject of on-going maintenance, then it is still valid and by default the O/C is responsible for all maintenance.

    Whale I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but it seems to me that this is an open invitation for unscrupulous owners to get Special Resolutions passed for alterations and forgetting to include who is responsible for the maintenance. 99% of owners would not be aware of this catch and would happily approve an alteration expecting the onus for maintenance to fall on the lot owner.

    Taking this to the extreme a lot owner could obtain permission for an extension with no indication of who is responsible for maintenance and then put up a shoddy structure and expect the OC to bring it up to scratch claiming it’s OC responsibility to maintain.

    I’m of the opinion the OC should only be responsible for the original structure and only alterations the OC has paid for (that is my understanding of the rules in QLD).