- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Recently our strata manager wrote to lot owners asking us to “consent to making a by-law conferring rights over the common property for the repair and maintenance of each lot’s respective decking by all the respective owners in our scheme”.
The Owners Corporation intends to seek approval at the AGM for a by-law that confers the following responsibilities on owners in relation to the timber decking on the balconies:
Owners
- must maintain, replace (if necessary) and keep in good and serviceable repair the Decking;
- remains liable for any damage to any lot or common property arising out of the Works (including to the Lot);
- must maintain, upkeep and replace, if necessary, those parts of the common property in contact with the Decking;
- remains liable for any damage to the Lot or common property arising out of the repair, maintenance, replacement or removal of the Decking;
- must repair and / or reinstate the common property or personal property of the Owners Corporation to its original condition if the Decking is removed or relocated;
- must at all times comply with all directions, orders and requirements of any Authority relating to the Works; and
- must indemnify and keep indemnified the Owners Corporation against any costs or losses arising out of the installation,use,repair,removal or replacement of any Decking or the Works including any liability in respect of the property of the Owner.
Furthermore, they add penalties nor not complying such as allowing the Owner’s Corporation to recover the costs of such work from the Owner as a debt due.
I am sure this action is in response to some damage that has already occurred to common property. However, I am concerned that the Owners Corporation is attempting to impose more responsibility on owners without appropriate consideration.
-
Replies
-
aw, that depends upon what you mean by “appropriate consideration”. Owners need to put an opposing view if they consider such a bylaw unfair. I would agree that the bylaw is aimed at imposing more responsibility on owners but is that necessarially a bad thing?
Our OC recently passed a bylaw making many things, that according to the memorandum put out by the Land and Property Office (AG520000 titled Defining who is responsible for items and areas in a Strata Scheme), an owner’s responsibility. We have done this for items that we consider are in the control of owners eg flyscreens and trees in courtyards.
I have no idea of the physical layout of your strata but if access to the balaconies is only available to owners of particular units, shouldn’t each owner bear responsibilty for the upkeep of ‘their’ balacony? That way each owner is encouraged to look after their ‘exclusive access’ balacony. For example, one owner may use the balacony often while another hardly at all. If I was an owner who hardly ever used my balacony I would feel a bit hardly done by an owner was using a disproportionate amount of OC funds to maintain their balacony just because they used it all the time.
One way or another all owners pay it is just, do we do it through levys?
It sounds like the Owners Corp has decided it’s easier to make individual owners pre-emptively responsible for their decking than it is to pursue them for the cost of repairing common property that they may have damaged. This is one of those cases where we all need to get our heads aroung the concept the the Owners Corp isn’t “them” … it’s “us”. And if you want the Owners Corp to be responsible for your decking, then be prepared to be responsible for everyone else’s.
I don’t think there’s anything particulalry sinister in all this as it puts responsibility for common property that doesn’t have any immediate bearing on the integrity of the building back where it probably belongs.
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.
We have balcony decking in our complex. It has always been a concern that something that is not accessible or even visible to the ECOC and is only accessible to the owner but needs to be maintained could be considered the responsibility of others. Some people look after their decks. Some people of course believe it is do someone else to look after.
By having pot plants sitting on decking and not providing adequate air flow beneath can cause wood. Not maintaining a deck can lead to its early demise. But if the deck if not accessible, if you need an owners permission or for an owner to tell you it needs maintainance where does that leave an OC?
On the other hand, a balcony deck is part of the building structure, at least in our complex it is with supporting posts for the deck that also support part of the roof structure. So would it be better for the OC to be responsible to ensure safety in the complex? Then again, we have units that have decking that is not a balcony, but a deck off the back in the courtyard that is not structural but rather an attachment to the structure. Two types of decking. Two types of structure. Do we cover one and not the other? Do we cover both? Either way, we have decking in our complex that only the residents can access, that residents can do whatever they like to and do little or no maintenance to, and no doubt they will expect the OC to pay for the treatment they have subjected this area to. Unlike tiles, decking is not very forgiving.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.