- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I am the holder of a CTTT order ordering the owners corp to fix my shower at no cost to me. Once the work began and tiles were removed it became obvious that there was a lot more damage (waterproofing problems) to the floor and walls which means the whole bathroom needs to be re-done. I have had building inspection reports and tilers and a waterproofing specialist all confirm that the waterproofing for my shower cannot be done properly and in line with BCA etc unless the whole bathroom is re-done and also that the further damage discovered extends across the whole bathroom floor. Trouble is the EC just don’t want to do it. The EC are trying to bully me and demanding i let the original work order go ahead knowing full well that once that is done the evidence of the extensive damage will be hidden i.e. tiled over the top of. I have refused to allow the sub-standard work to go ahead and they refuse to fix it properly so the order is now been in breach for almost a year. To complicate matters further we have a building defects claim and the EC are hoping the insurer will cover the cost of the broader issues with the bathroom. From my perspective the EC should fix the bathroom now and seek any re-imbursement that may be applicable later as the bathroom is currently unusable (and has been for a year) and the insurance claim is dragging on. But they seem to think that even going to the insurer and asking will “threathen” the whole complex’s claim which i think is nonsense. Also, i would think that any further damage uncovered when doing work to comply with the CTTT order will in turn then become part of the order if you can’t fix one properly without the other. What do you think? Do i have a right to enforce an order with a broader scope of works than specifically mentioned in that order? The builders report referred to in the order does state that you cannot tell if waterproofing has been compromised unless tiles are removed and as it turned out that was the case once they were removed. Do i have the right to demand they fix the whole thing now and negotiate the shared cost with the insurer – surely this sort of thing isn’t uncommon.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.