I always try to apply the test of logic and consistency to such matters, as both seem to be lacking in all of the “Who’s responsible” publications that I’ve read.
Like if the water supply isolator to a Lot can be considered Common Property, why isn’t the Electrical Sub-Board which has precisely the same function for a different service, the failure of which has an equivalent impact? Fire is an issue too, so why not make smoke detectors in Lots Common Property?
Why does S64 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) give Owners Corporations the ability to repair items such as water and electrical isolation devices at its cost if those costs can’t be recovered from the Lot Owner. Why would those costs be recoverable unless Lot Owners were otherwise responsible for those repairs?
That’s why my Owners Corporation (O/C) resolved to apply that logic and consistency to the most contentious grey-areas with maintenance and repairs regularly faced in our Plan, and enshrined that in a Special By-Law.
As Jimmy said, even that Special By-Law will likely give the Members of the Tribunal something else to consider (inconsistently
) if we ever get there over a maintenance and repair dispute.
I’m hopeful that the shortly to be released Review of the SCMA will address some of the inconsistencies, or at least make these interpretations less necessary.