› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Talkin’ ’bout a renovation › Current Page
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
CreatorTopic
-
09/04/2013 at 8:50 am #8783
Hello fellow flat chatters,
It was my understanding that moving taps in a bathroom/kitchen was not allowed as the pipes are part of common property. Is this allowed to happen with a special by-law? Or it is simple EC approval?
Thank you all
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
09/04/2013 at 10:22 am #18246
The pipes once they enter the wall or floor of common property are Strata reasponsibility, so if you extend the pipes to the new location of bath / sink within the lot (instead of sinking them within the wall) you are ok. The pipes within the air space of the lot are your reasponsibility.
Strictly speaking hammering a nail into a common wall require Strata approval and a bylaw but common sense says to use your comon sense.
09/04/2013 at 11:27 am #18247If you are doing anything to change common property – such as pipes in the wall and bathroom tiles – you need a special resolution by-law which should include clauses that make you responsible for the repair and maintenance of any parts of the common property that you alter or replace.
Some buildings have a blanket by-law in place that makes any owner responsible for changes made to common property even if they don’t tell the Owners Corp about them – this gets round the problem of people making changes, not telling the Owners Corp and then selling their unit at which point the owners Corp (not the new owner) inherits responsibility for the alterations.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.
09/04/2013 at 1:21 pm #18249Also, the rules on ownership, repair and maintenance of services vary from state to state.
In Victoria, services become an owner repair and maintenance responsibility from the point where they split to exclusively supply the owner’s lot. And that is regardless of if the service then goes through common property.
10/04/2013 at 8:55 am #18250To wrap all this up, in NSW if the taps are part of the water reticulation system that services only the Lot (and in a bathroom/kitchen that’s likely) and they’re currently and proposed to be within an internal as opposed to a perimeter (common) wall, then the Lot owner can have them relocated by a licensed plumber.
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
On the issue of the need for a Special By-Law (SBL) where works are proposed that change the common property, doesn’t a special resolution suffice in circumstances where the Owners Corporation is prepared to consider works of the same types individually as opposed to giving a blanket consent to those via a SBL?
10/04/2013 at 10:38 am #18251To wrap all this up, in NSW if the taps are part of the water reticulation system that services only the Lot (and in a bathroom/kitchen that’s likely) and they’re currently and proposed to be within an internal as opposed to a perimeter (common) wall, then the Lot owner can have them relocated by a licensed plumber.
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
On the issue of the need for a Special By-Law (SBL) where works are proposed that change the common property, doesn’t a special resolution suffice in circumstances where the Owners Corporation is prepared to consider works of the same types individually as opposed to giving a blanket consent to those via a SBL?
10/04/2013 at 10:40 am #18252@Whale said:
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
To be clearer, in Victoria, an owner can’t just arrange new works within common property without OC permission. Owners have a responsibility to repair and maintain existing services when they exclusively service their lot – including where the service goes through any common property. And that’s the limit – repair and maintain the existing service – not modify or rearrange or alter common property.
10/04/2013 at 3:31 pm #18253@Austman said:
On the issue of the need for a Special By-Law (SBL) where works are proposed that change the common property, doesn’t a special resolution suffice in circumstances where the Owners Corporation is prepared to consider works of the same types individually as opposed to giving a blanket consent to those via a SBL?
I was referring to a by-law that isn’t so much as a blanket consent as a condition that applies to all work, whether it’s approved or not. It’s a safety net provision. You are supposed to let the EC know you are planning to change your apartment and you are supposed to get proper permissions to alter common property, including (sensibly) provision for ongoing repair and maintenance. However, there are people who just go ahead and change stuff without letting anyone know so a blanket by-law will draw them (or subsequent purchasers) into the net if anything goes wrong. It also puts an added onus on purchasers of renovated units to make sure renovations have been done properly with the full knowledge of the Owners Corp.
Like Austman, I don’t think blanket approvals are a good idea but that wasn’t the intent of what I wrote.
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.
11/04/2013 at 2:03 pm #18256Thanks Jimmy – but that was my post not Austman’s (thanks for the clarification by the way Austman) and somehow it’s duplicated (??); elves perhaps.
Anyway, I was trying to dispel the assumption that a Special Resolution always gives rise to a Special By-Law (SBL), because unless those are drafted and registered in-house (for the princely sum of $102), the services of a Legal Professional can make that an expensive assumption.
You’re right about the need for blanket SBL to cover works that change the Common Property. In fact as I think I’ve mentioned before, we’ve had to do that and go a step further by linking that SBL to a Register of Changes and Additions to Common Property that shows all works that the Owners Corporation has consented, including those it has itself undertaken.
If works aren’t shown on the Register, then the SBL states that they’re un-consented and that all maintenance and repairs of them is the responsibility of the Proprietor from time-to-time of the Lot concerned.
As an aside, I’m continually surprised by the fact that intending purchasers of Lots in our Plan very rarely commission a Strata Search in order to, amongst other things, identify any consented and un-consented works that have been undertaken on the Lot. To address the issue, I’ve begun including any consented works shown on our Register at Item 18 (“other items”) on the S109 Certificates that are routinely requested; can’t do much more!
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Talkin’ ’bout a renovation › Current Page