#25740
scotlandx
Strataguru

    I am baffled as to why the owner is being paid money for “inconvenience”.  In some circumstances where an owner can prove a financial loss or cost incurred due to works etc., it may be appropriate that the OC pay an amount (there have been cases where an owner has been awarded financial compensation, those cases are generally pretty extreme).

    However – the owner has to prove that they have or will suffer a financial loss or incurred a cost.  Inconvenience of itself is not compensable.  For example, if the repairs are confined to the balcony and the owner can use the rest of their apartment, then why should they be paid compensation?

    I am about to have several of the ceilings replaced in my apartment, which is being paid for by insurance held by the OC.  I am not claiming money from the OC for the inconvenience to me in having the work done (which is considerable), I just want the work done.

    The EC is spending the Owners Corporation’s money.  It is not their money.  They have a duty to spend that money appropriately.

    This leads on to the next question which has already been asked – if the balcony is not common property why is the OC paying for the repairs to it?  If it is the case that the balcony is the owner’s property, the OC is not liable for the repairs, and they certainly shouldn’t be paying any money for a vague concept of inconvenience.

    If it were me I would be making an application for an order to stop the OC proceeding with the works or any payment to the owner.