- This topic has 7 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I live in a 100 lot scheme. Some flats are air-conditioned, others not. There is a central aircon system with individual air handling units in each airconed flat.
Some years ago a by-law was passed that purported to have all aircon running costs and maintenance costs paid only by those owners that actually had aircon installed. So far, this has been acceptable to most people (and has delighted those that didn’t have arcon and now don’t have to pay) but has greatly irritated some owners that have aircon but choose not to use it.
The central aircon plant is coming to the end of its useful life. The cost to replace it will be substantial, maybe $200,000+. So there is now a proposal being mooted for a new by-law. The effect of this would be to:
- Allow owners that don’t use with aircon to decide to have their systems disconnected. These owners would not pay anything towards the cost of replacing the system to which they have had access for many years
- Those owners that chose to remain connected would bear the cost of replacing the central aircon plant
I believe it is wrong that owners that have had access to the aircon system all along can just stop contributing to costs when the system needs replacement. If the proposed approach was to be extended to its logical end there would be a turnstile on the lift and at the entrance to the gym! I would greatly appreciate any comments people may have about the legality of all of this, or where I should begin to look.
regards Tyalla
-
Replies
-
Strange that they would build an apartment complex with air con only to some?
How old is this building? I hope each unit has their own power meter. Would hate to pay for electricity for someone using air con if I didn't.
The costs of operating and maintaining Common Property assets such as your Plan's communal air conditioning system should be calculated in accordance with the Units of Entitlement applicable to Lots at your Plan.
Some of our Legal “posters” would be in a better position than me to respond, but so far as I'm aware the Special By-Law that's been put in place with regard to payment for the air-conditioning is improper (read: illegal).
If such arrangements were proper, your suggested turnstile might just as easily be extended to other high maintenance areas like pool and the elevator; and that's why I believe it to be improper!
Would one of our Strata Lawyers like to respond?
Tyalla said:
I live in a 100 lot scheme. Some flats are air-conditioned, others not. There is a central aircon system with individual air handling units in each airconed flat.
Some years ago a by-law was passed that purported to have all aircon running costs and maintenance costs paid only by those owners that actually had aircon installed. So far, this has been acceptable to most people (and has delighted those that didn't have arcon and now don't have to pay) but has greatly irritated some owners that have aircon but choose not to use it.
The central aircon plant is coming to the end of its useful life. The cost to replace it will be substantial, maybe $200,000+. So there is now a proposal being mooted for a new by-law. The effect of this would be to:
- Allow owners that don't use with aircon to decide to have their systems disconnected. These owners would not pay anything towards the cost of replacing the system to which they have had access for many years
- Those owners that chose to remain connected would bear the cost of replacing the central aircon plant
I believe it is wrong that owners that have had access to the aircon system all along can just stop contributing to costs when the system needs replacement. If the proposed approach was to be extended to its logical end there would be a turnstile on the lift and at the entrance to the gym! I would greatly appreciate any comments people may have about the legality of all of this, or where I should begin to look.
Was it that the building installed aircon was so bad that some owners installed their own extra aircon units? Unless you live in a very “green” building, with great ventilation and insulation, I think you you would need aircon for resale value, as well as for the hot summers and cold winters. It would make sense to me to replace the old central airconditioning with a more efficient system to all the units at the one time. Some people may choose not to use it, but their electricity bill will be lower than those who do. What if some owners decide they do not want to use any electricity at all and have it disconnected, take out their plumbing and choose to bring their water from the nearest stream?
It should still be connected to the unit for another owner to use after they move on. Better to do the whole building with an “approved” system at one time, or take out the old system completely, leaving each owner to install separate units (according to local council rules as well as Owners Corporation By Laws).<
If it were me, I would see how much it would cost to remove the air con plant and have individual air con systems put into each unit with a bylaw stating that each owner is responsible for their own air con maintenance/upkeep and replacement in the future.
Perhaps the space where the plant was could be used for something else like storage? This would not cost less than the plant replacement but would save money in the long run. There would be no maintenance for the plant, no money needed to be set aside for its replacement in the future. Instead, the money would go into the coffers to be used somewhere else in the building resulting in levies not having to increase too much in the future.
I agree with flatchatfan – people who want to use their air con can. Future owners may want air con (used property air con isn't too expensive).
Tyalla, I'm with you on this. Logically, assuming there is no way of establishing who has or hasn't used their airconditioning, then those who have had it installed but have chosen not to use it just have to “suck it up” and pay their share of replacement. They can take their opportunity to disconnect their air-con now when it is being replaced.
Choosing not to use a facility to which you have access is the individual owner's choice but it doesn't over-ride collective responsibility for common property. Should someone who lives on the 5th floor pay less for the use of the lifts than someone who is on level 15? Should someone who can't swim be excused the share of the levies for the swimming pool?
I wonder if the people who never used the air-con advertise their apartments as having it installed when it comes time to sell?
Any new by-law will require a 75 percent vote in favour to be passed so all you have to do is rally support from 25 percent of residents to knock it over, then propose an amendment that removes the clause freeing the self-proclaimed non-users from payment.
I would caution whoever is pushing this that there are many reasons why this could be challenged at the CTTT, costing everyone time and money. There is also, arguably, a possibility that the so-called non-users could then claim for the refund of usage fees, once the Owners Corporation has effectively agreed that they never used the air-con.
Their opportunity to remove themselves from responsibility for the old system has passed – now they should gratefully accept a chance to put things right. And if they say they didn't realise they might be up for the repair or replacement of the old system, they are presumably driving around in pristine 1970s cars and still using the same TV they bought when they first set up home.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.