@pmo said:
Not correct sorry. If a water leak from OC pipe for example causes damage to your carpet then you have to claim on your insurance. OC does not pay and does not claim on their insurance. See
I have heard so many versions of this and every time I think we have a definitive answer, something else pops up.
Here is one of the scenarios in the Fair Trading document quoted by PMO.
There is damp and mould in my unit.
The owners corporation is responsible for water penetration problems coming in through external walls or the floor. The owner is responsible for the mould on their walls.
That seems to suggest that the Owner’s Corp has to fix the problem that’s causing the damp but the owner has to fix the internal damage caused by the problem.
Then there’s the famous Who’s Responsible memorandum which says …
1.5 …major considerations have been:
a. all internal and external waterproofing is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation (including the function of any structure) except where a lot owner causes damage to waterproofing,
Later it says …
2.12 Floor – Owners responsibility
c. Internal carpets and unfixed floating floors.
And then we have
2.13 General – OC responsibility
b. Dampness in a unit coming from outside.
And then …
2.17 Plumbing (includes bathroom, kitchen and laundry) – OC responsibility
a. Blocked floor drain or sewer in common property.
b. Burst pipe in common property.
c. Burst pipe outside the lot.
d. Damage to unit after water leak when OC effecting a repair.
i. Water leaking through tiles or from one lot and affecting another lot or common property.
Hmmm, clear as mud? A lot of that seems contradictory to me but there are three things you need to remember with regard to this document.
1. It has no legal standing unless is has been adopted as part of your by-laws.
2. Even so, if you find yourself at Fair Trading or the CTTT arguing a point not covered by your by-laws, the adjudicator will reach for the Memorandum as a guide.
3. There are principles of common law that mean if A’s actions or negligence costs B in some way, then A can theoretically be held accountable.
The question then arises, is it worth pursuing a claim for say, the excess on your insurance, or an increased insurance premium? The answer, more often than not will probably be ‘no’.
If your insurance is happy to pay for the carpet and it doesn’t affect your premiums, go with the flow. But if it’s going to cost you substantially, I’d be looking for compensation from the Owners Corp becasue of their negligence.