Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8016
    Austman
    Flatchatter

      We have an owner who wants to install 3 additional skylight type fittings in the roof of their top floor apartment.  Our problem is that we already have lots of skylights (over 25 skylights for the 6 top floor apartments and Common Property), vents and air-conditioning units that penetrate the building's metal roof.   We have had a long history of water leaks (which cause damage to the apartment below) from these roof penetrations and are currently spending many thousands of dollars to repair them.  From a maintenance point of view we really need no more.

      Although the owner will of course pay to install the new skylight fittings (adding to their existing 5 skylights) we on the EC know that eventually the OC will have to maintain and repair them.  It's not a matter of if but a matter of when and how much.  The OC also has to pay for repairs to the apartment below if the roof leaks.  This might be covered by insurance but even so our policy currently has a $1,000 excess per claim.

      There's really no need for the owner to install more skylights.  A few 5W LED lights will do the job (and work at night too), be a lot cheaper to install and would very low cost to run.  The owner even admits this but has a 'preference' for daylight.

      Can the EC refuse permission because the request will eventually cost the OC more in maintenance and insurance costs?  Is this a reasonable response from the EC?

    Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #15087
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        The permission wil require a special resolution by-law and you can make it a condition of that that the skylight installers agree to pay for maintenance and repairs of the skylights in perpetuity. You can also get them to pay for the creation of the by-law. If they don’t agree then you don’t allow the skylight. That’s a perfectly reasonable and common response to this kid of request.

        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.
        #15094
        Austman
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          Thanks for the advice Jimmy.  The Committee can approve the installation but if we do that we would commit the OC to maintain it.  This seems unfair when the installation is for the sole benefit of one owner.  We will ask for the owner to present the Committee with an amended proposal that includes how the owner intends to legally commit the lot to pay for all future maintenance, repair and damage costs related to the installation.  We will suggest that they may need to seek legal advice on how this can be done.

          #15095
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            That's the way to do it.  There's no obligation on the EC or Owners Corp to approve changes to Common Property that only benefit one person.  They have to take rsponsibility for ALL costs associated with this as well as ongoing repairs and maintenance.  And beware the “nod and a wink” approval – if it's not formalised as a special resolution, responsibility for repairs and maintenance will fall back on the Owners Corp if and when the unit is sold.

            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.
          Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

          Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page