#27372
Lady Penelope
Strataguru

     I like your thinking SH!

    For the deadlock in the strata scheme this could boil down to the definition of ‘maintenance’ v the definition of an ‘improvement’. Technically, the replacement of the timber paling fence with another timber paling fence would be maintenance i.e. replacing like for like. This is a relatively simple matter.

    However, if colorbond was used it would be an ‘improvement’ and as such would require a special resolution rather than a simple majority. This is unlikely to be achieved given the 50/50 split in the strata up to this point in time. A timber paling fence would likely be the winner.

    Now we move on to the issue with the neighbour …..

    With regard to the neighbouring property deadlock, usually it is the adjoining neighbours that each pay for half of the cost of the fence replacement. Speaking from a QLD perspective (and I believe that NSW is relatively similar) if there was a deadlock with the neighbour about the type of fence it is generally the case that the dividing fence only need to be a sufficient  dividing fence. If the existing fence was a timber paling fence and most fences in the neighbourhood are timber paling fences then timber paling fences would probably be deemed to be a ‘sufficient fence’.

    If the neighbour wanted a colorbond fence and the colorbond fence was more expensive than the paling fence then the neighbour would be liable for the fencing work to the extent that it is greater than the standard for a paling fence i.e. the neighbour would pay a higher proportion of the cost if colorbond was used as the fencing material.

    If the neighbour was agreeable to this then colorbond would probably be the winner. If arguments still exist then its off to the Tribunal ….

    I hope this makes sense!

    ( Apologies JT – we must have been responding at the same time – most of my commentary is similar to yours.)