› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page
- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 8 months ago by .
-
CreatorTopic
-
12/06/2013 at 1:52 pm #8871
We bought a unit (NSW) last year. Apparently one of the previous owners has moved the wiring and wall-plate that connects to the buildings TV aerial. It also appears no specific approval was obtained from the body corporate.
This has come to light as a result of the buildings TV aerial and wiring being upgraded because of the the digital roll-out. From the preliminary report of the contractor it appears there could be additional expenses incurred for our unit due to the changes in wiring and moving the wall-plate. There is nothing official as yet but there are indications that we may be asked to pay the additional expense rather than the body corporate.
Two questions (1) are we liable for any additional expense to the common property and (2) what about cost of taking up and relaying our floor covering ie. carpet and tiles?
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
12/06/2013 at 6:07 pm #18666
ccgirl – under the provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) Owners wishing to make changes to the Common Property are required to first seek the written consent of their Owners Corporation (O/C), who if it agrees will include conditions, usually including one making that Owner and all subsequent Owners of the Lot concerned responsible for all on-going maintenance/repairs and replacements of the changed item/s.
The converse position, perhaps unreasonably held, is that if no consent is sought prior to an Owner making a change to the Common Property, then by default the O/C remains responsible for the changed item/s, just as it would be if it had itself made those changes.
Television and Pay-TV cabling is a little more complicated.
It is usual (although not exclusively so) for that cabling and the in-line signal amplifiers (often called the “backbone) to run from the antenna head or node, through the roof cavity or the space between the ceiling of one Lot and the floor of the Lot above, and for the individual feeder cables connected to it (often called “droppers”) to pass down inside or up through Lots’ vertical walls or floor to connect to the wall plate/s.
So taking likely scenarios into consideration where the cabling and wall plate have been changed without the O/C’s consent:
• the “backbone” is the O/C’s responsibility no matter what;
• IF the “dropper” is within a perimeter / outside wall of the Lot then it too is the O/C’s responsibility;
• IF the “dropper” is within an internal / dividing wall of your Lot then it’s your responsibility.
I don’t understand why tiles and carpets would need to be removed, but floor tiles originally fitted when your building was first occupied are the O/C’s responsibility, those fitted since, and carpets are your responsibility.
There are a few other scenarios such as if your O/C has a Special By-Law in place covering the responsibility for service cabling such as for television, pay-tv, data, and telephone, but without further investigation / information from you I can’t comment further. Perhaps post again when matters become more official.
12/06/2013 at 7:46 pm #18669Thanks Whale, I will come back again when things become official/clearer. But just to clarify the question on the floor covering – the contractor made a comment about the “changed” wiring possibly now going under the floor coverings.
12/06/2013 at 8:13 pm #18671That’s your problem I’m afraid. Hear from you later.
17/06/2013 at 10:08 am #18724Why bother getting OC approval for some changes to common property?
Whale raises a very good point regarding the strange interpretation of common property alterations made by owners. I have also heard similar comments from my strata manager and also a Strata lawyer.
So now some people in our property know that if they seek permission to alter common property they may or may not get it approved and it will probably be “with conditions”. On the other hand they have heard from the so called legal experts that if the work is done without permission then the Owners Corp will still likely be responsible for the changes.
So why would any half smart owner ever bother to get permission, particularly if they think it might not be approved??
Have I been hearing incorrect interpretations or does this just highlight the non-commercial and sometime ridiculous interpretation of strata laws that tribunals, courts & lawyers make??
Thanks for any input that might be offered
17/06/2013 at 10:36 am #18726oystercove – you’re hearing correctly!
The way around this anomaly is to do what I did for my Plan, by obtaining Owners’ consent (by special resolution) to create and register a Special By-Law (SBL) stating that the maintenance, repair, and replacement of any changes, additions, or alterations to the Common Property that are not shown in the Plan’s Register of Changes to Common Property are entirely the responsibility of the Owner/s from time-to-time of the Lot/s concerned.
We resolved to advise all Owners of the upcoming SBL and to give them three (3) months to advise the Owners Corporation (O/C) of anything that it may not otherwise be aware of (and some did), the Chairman and me then inspected those and placed their relevant details with others in the Register, on the 91st day I ruled a line under the last entry, and went ahead with Registration with NSW Land & Property Information.
Now, whenever the O/C makes a change (recently, an additional clothesline) I record that in the Register, and when an owner applies to do so and they receive a written consent from the O/C with conditions (where appropriate), I similarly record the details in the Register; agreed it’s a bit more work for the hard-working Secretary but it’s very well worth the effort in my opinion.
17/06/2013 at 11:07 am #18727Thank you Whale. That is very helpful
17/06/2013 at 11:51 am #18729@oystercove said:
…. why would any half smart owner ever bother to get permission, particularly if they think it might not be approved??
Because if they get found out before they sell their property, they can find themselves having to reinstate the CP to it’s original state at their own expense. It’s only after the property with unapproved changes is sold that the changes become the responsibility of the Owners Corp.
How do they get found out? Fire inspections, other work in the unit and, as a last resort, a sticky-beak at an open house prior to sale. Whale’s catch-all by-law is the best way to go but failing that, a an information hand-out warning people that unapproved changes may lead to to delays when they come to sell might get owners to toe the line.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
17/06/2013 at 9:30 pm #18735Someone in the block I reside in recently installed an air -con., partly on common property for which there are detailed minutes from the EC approving it. I checked with the Dept. of Fair Trading and was advised that this is of no consequence i.e. it has been installed with neither consideration or approval of the relevant body, the OC. If the owner sells does this mean that the OC has the responsibility to maintain it or could they also remove it i.e. does it become “common property”.
18/06/2013 at 10:17 am #18736As far as I can see one BIG problem in NSW is where EC grant permission to lot owners for changes to common property with just an ordinary resolution and NO conditions.
This well meaning strata can then find themselves liable for any ongoing maintenance to this alteration (which they assumed would be taken care of by the lot owner) because maintenance of common property defaults to the strata.
This is why a bylaw as suggested by Whale should be mandatory in every NSW Strata, in fact I would go as far as saying it should be included in the sample bylaws shown in the Strata Act.
18/06/2013 at 11:40 am #18739KP – I agree, not just because of my SBL, but because in dech’s example (and in others that I’ve read on FlatChat) it was the Executive Committee (E/C) that gave consent to the changes (albeit possibly well-intentioned), when that is the role of the Owners Corporation (O/C) by way of a Special Resolution (≥75% voting in favour) taken at a General Meeting.
In answer to dech’s questions – yes, in the circumstances you describe the O/C would be held responsible for the maintenance of the air-conditioning system, and yes, it could require a Lot Owner to remove it and to restore the Common Property.
As I’ve stated in other posts, a problem often arises when the well-intentioned nature of the parties involved changes after property settlement (sale of the Lot) and/or after changes to the membership of the E/C.
It seems to me that both the current Lot Owners (who at least sought consent) and the current E/C would have the goodwill to remedy this situation, so your O/C needs to place an item on the Agenda of its General Meeting and Specially Resolve to grant retrospective consent to the Lot Owner’s air-conditioning system.
In order to enforce conditions such as one to make current and future Owners of the Lot responsible for all on-going maintenance, repairs, and replacements of the air-condition system, your O/C will need to Register a complementary Special By-Law; that would then apply to all Lot Owners who in future seek the O/C’s consent for air-conditioner installations.
18/06/2013 at 3:04 pm #18744I like the idea of your Common Property Register and would love to see the text of your special by-law relating to alterations to common property. Is there something available online or can you send me a copy of the SBL?
18/06/2013 at 3:13 pm #18745We have the exact same situation in our building where one of the Owners’ (known for causing trouble) TV wall plates has been moved (they claim it was the previous owner but I would doubt that) which means that the unit below them also needs an alternate solution to be able to be connected to the free-to-air system (running cable along the outside of the building to bypass their unit!). The Owner has also refused to give the contractors permission to restore the wall plate to it’s original position. Of course, this is the first time the EC/OC has been made aware of the change to CP
Our Strata manager has advised that we would be within our rights to ask them to restore the wall plate to the original position, but I think to save the inevitible and disproportionate fuss we have just decided to spend the extra $200 to have the cable run in through their existing Foxtel conduit – it just isn’t worth the pain.
18/06/2013 at 4:01 pm #18746Zijerfex said …. I like the idea of your Common Property Register and would love to see the text of your special by-law relating to alterations to common property.
Happy to do that as soon as I can work out how to cut and paste to this page from a pdf document. I’ll have to get a License so that I can charge for all the Special By-Laws that I’ve written; I’d make a fortune.
18/06/2013 at 5:17 pm #18747@Whale said:
Happy to do that as soon as I can work out how to cut and paste to this page from a pdf document. I’ll have to get a License so that I can charge for all the Special By-Laws that I’ve written; I’d make a fortune.
And I’d happily pay for your license – it would be worth it in the long run when these issue inevitably arise
18/06/2013 at 5:21 pm #18748Thanks Whale I understand that better now.
According to the act: Section 65A
(4) A special resolution under this section that allows an owner of a lot to take action in relation to certain common property and provides that the ongoing maintenance of that common property after the action is taken is the responsibility of the owner has no effect unless:
(a) the owners corporation obtains the written consent of the owner to the making of a by-law to provide for the maintenance of the common property by the owner, and
(b) the owners corporation makes such a by-law.So any ordinary resolution by the OC or EC is meaningless if it grants lot owners permission to change the common property and so the OC can ask the lot owner to return it to it’s original state. Surely this obligation would extent to a new owner as well (in dech case) as no permission was granted by the OC (just the EC) and the OC is only obliged to maintain the original structure (unless it properly authorized the change and accepted responsibility).
The only time the maintenance should fall on the OC would be if the lot owner had a SR passed but didn’t register a bylaw.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page