Bathroom Tiles

Firstly, let’s clarify the “line” – only the original tiles on common areas are Common Property and therefore the responsibility of the Owners Corporation; that’s the floor, any walls that adjoin other Lots, and any walls that also the outside walls of the Building.

Secondly, any replacement of those original tiles by Owners must receive the Owners Corporation’s written consent in advance of the works being undertaken,  and it is usual for any written consent to include a statement to the effect that all future works to maintain, repair, and replace those replacement tiles is the responsibility of the Lot Owner (the current one, and all subsequent Owners).

With regard to your Executive Committee Members’ proposal to introduce a special levy for their own benefit, that would be in conflict with the Developer’s obligations under the Defects Warranty, would also deny them their legal right to be given the first opportunity to undertake corrective works, and likely void their responsibility for any other related works in future. Furthermore, that special levy would require the agreement of a majority of Owners at a General Meeting; surely you could muster enough support to knock that on the head!

@chak said:
 

Does it mean only the original tiles on the walls adjoining other Lots in the bathroom are considered CP? Original tiles on dividing walls within the unit are not CP?

What happened if the Developer re-tiled over the original tiles instead of removing the old tiles? 

Only the tiles on common property walls are generally considered common property.

Hi chak,

My thoughts on the issues raised:

Tiling over existing tiles

This is an acceptable practise for repairing or renewing tiles in existing buildings providing the base tiles are sound and can support the new, the owners are happy to accept the visual result (it will add another approx 10mm layer thickness to the wall and show a thicker edge if visible) and the edges and joints with other elements are finished neatly. It is not regarded as “bad work” in the industry if it is done properly.

This practice has the main advantage of minimising the extremely messy and dusty demolition phase that you have to endure if you are removing the old tiles.  It is also much cheaper due to the cost of disposal of old tile rubble and protecting the apartment from the mess if demolition.

Common property line

Agree with the others who commented and assume they included the new overlying tiles as part of the common property as they are part of the original installation.

Approach from here?

The approach you should take depends on the reasons for the EC wanting to redo the tiles:

1. If the workmanship is unsatisfactory (eg untidy edge finishes, etc), it should be fixed by the builder at their cost;
2. If they don’t like the look of the overlain finish (workmanship is fine) and builder did not get approval for this repair method, then it leans towards the builder to fix.
3. If they don’t like the look of the overlain finish (workmanship is fine) and builder did get approval for this repair method, the builder is off the hook.  If the EC approved it, they might just have to live with it in this case;
4. If they simply don’t like the look of the tiles they have selected and they had approved the tiles before installation, it should have nothing to do with the OC and special levies, common property or not.  They would however need OC approval to change the tiles in this case but not OC to pay.

You should try to find out which of the above applies.  This will be highly relevant to a debate for a motion to raise a special levy

Alos, try to avoid getting another builder involved as this will interfere with your HOW insurance.

Regards,

Rob T