#25741
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    WilliamW

    You make sense when you wrote, “it would seem sensible to have an independent and transparent Engineer Consultancy Company investigate and write a scope of works. Once the scope of works has been written, they will tender the work to 3 or 4 contractors. The Strata Committee can then decide which contractor they will choose”.

    I mentioned a similar opinion to one EC member and he seemed agreeable. But soon after he was clearly influenced by two EC members who benefit from the OC paying for the repairs of one lot’s balcony. These EC members convinced the “independent” EC member that the balcony is common property (which worries me a bit) and that the damage sustained is to be repaired at OC’s cost (this worries me more as it has not been proved). It is the absence of a report from an independent authority on the alleged damage that I find most objectionable.

    I then asked the “independent” EC member that we need to have an EC meeting and I will table one item to discuss:

    Would the EC please advise (a) who owns the balcony in question? The lot owner or the OC? And (b) why was the leaking not subject to an independent investigation instead of asking tillers and concreters to quote for a gold plated job?

    The “independent” member does not want to ‘rock the boat’ and said he will ask the others about this, but doesn’t want it in writing. He said he “will not push for  meeting to discuss this if I am convinced that the EC members are genuine”.

    It amazes me how easy it is to dupe some people.

    I agree that most often balconies are part of common property, but when I asked my solicitor to investigate this issue, he confirmed that the lot connected to the balcony owns the balcony. This is clear on the strata map.

    The SP was registered in 1983.