- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Dear Flat Chatters
My first post!
Currently I am a member of an EC of a medium sized strata complex (less than 100 lots). The apartments were built in the 70’s. Recently we are discovering that at the time of construction the window flashings were installed incorrectly, allowing water to find its way between the outer and inner skin of brick work over the last 40 years. Flooding has never been reported. However, over time, water seepage has affected our concrete slabs on the most weather effected side of the building.
My question is, if common property work needs to be conducted in units, who pays for de-fitting fixtures and fittings, and re-installing these fixtures once the concrete repairs have been completed?
I have checked with the Department of Lands as to the definition of common property for our strata plan, which excludes fixtures and fittings. My concern is, that if the OC remove 40 plus year old kitchen cabinets to access the slab, the cabinets are likely to fall apart and then cannot be re-installed. Are the OC up for new kitchen cabinets, or should the owner engage contractors to remove the cabinets and re-install after common property work is complete and therefore be responsible for any damage that may occur?
I look forward to learning of your thoughts.
-
Replies
-
The bad news is the Strata is responsible to restore (back to the state before removal) the fixtures and fitting that have to be removed to access the damaged common property.
Yep, that is bad news
. Unfortunately, as I am sure is not an uncommon theme, prior sinking fund plans have not accumulated cash for this rainy day. Prior remediation costs have been up to 100 K, and that was just for 1 lot. The current EC are trying to structure a 10 year plan that will account for these costs in addition to all the usual issues (lift upgrades, external refurb…etc), but we hadn’t calculated the cost of 15 to 20 kitchens as well. Up to now, access to the slabs has been coordinated with owners renovating their units without concerns about demolition.
As I indicated earlier, the areas requiring attention have 40 plus year old kitchens that will definately disintigrate during the de-fit. To restore the kitchen back to the previous state is likely unachievable. Instead, new cabinets and benches etc would be required, exceeding the state of the worn, tired original kitchen by a considerable amount.
Any suggestions on how to restore to the previous state given this situation?
For example, could we have the kitchens valued and give the lot owner the valued amount, so they can put the money toward a new kitchen?
As an aside, I would hate to think what would happen in blocks that have hard floors (timber or tiles). If the OC are responsible for replacing to the state that existed before removal, the OC may be forced to replace floor coverings through the entire unit, even though slab work may have been contained to a relatively small area, because of the inability to match with the existing materials (end of line, floor board colour and wear) to the satisfaction of the owner. Ouch!
The slab remediation is definately the responsibility of the Owners Corporation not the responsibility of individual owners. Common property includes slabs, shared walls, balconies, and in most instances windows and exterior doors (depending on when your Strata Plan was registered). Check your Strata Plan’s common property definitions with the Department of Lands. To cover the costs of the remediation, no doubt special levies will be called in addition to the special levies you mentioned for the balcony upgrades. So unfortunately, in the end you will be paying indirectly.
Oh, and magnesite is not a floor covering an individual unit owner would have installed. It would have been laid to level the slab and act as a sound proofing agent during construction. It doesn’t get used anymore, due to its destruction of concrete slabs. It leaches magnesium chloride ions into the slab when it gets wet, and that causes the steel reinforcing to rust. The swelling associated with the rusting causes the concrete to spall or blow. The slab is weakened and needs to be replaced. If the ceiling downstairs is cracking, then the upper and bottom layers of steel are rusted, and the entire slab (full thickness) may need replacing.
Magnesite only leaches magnesium chloride ions when it gets wet. That means the building maintenance has not been up to scratch (another reason why it is not a lot owner’s responsibility but the responsibility of the OC). That’s what the insurance company will tell you, and that’s why nobody can claim for concrete cancer repairs through insurance companies. Bugger!
William & Mark – here’s how I’d approach your very similar and unavoidably “messy” situations:
1) Irrespective of how the spalling occurred, and not withstanding the excellent description of the magnesite inter-reaction in post #5, the costs of repairs to all common property and for all associated works such as the removal of Owners’ fixtures and fittings and floor coverings is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation unless it has determined otherwise under the provisions of Sect 62(3) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) – where quite frankly I doubt that Cl.3(b) could be substantiated.
2) Individual Owners would be required to meet the costs of repairs to all areas that are part of their Lots (e.g. internal walls), and to re-install or renew their fixtures, fittings, and floor coverings.
3) The Owners Corporation (O/C) should meet the costs of a professional assessment to determine a cumulative present value for each Owner’s fixtures, fittings, and floor coverings that need to be removed in order for it to have repairs made to its common property, and pay that amount to those Owners as a contribution to the costs of re-installation or replacement of those items by them.
There are some additional factors including whether or not individual Owner’s floor coverings (e.g. carpets & tiles) are those originally installed when the building was completed, in which case replacement is the O/C’s responsibility, and whether the O/C should meet the costs of reinstalling existing fixtures and fittings where that’s possible and of new underlay (to replace the magnesite), but these and some others that I haven’t discussed are all unnecessary complications in my opinion that would definitely impede a sensible outcome.
Again in my opinion, IF possible it would be time and cost-effective for the O/C’s contractors to quote for and undertake all components of the works (e.g. repairs and re-installations / renewals), and to split their invoices between it and the individual Owners.
Finally, have your respective O/Cs considered borrowing the funds in circumstances where the Sinking Fund is deficient, and Mark, did you obtain a building inspection of your (then) potential purchase prior to the auction?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.