- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
An owner insists on costly replacement of “drummy” tiles. THe tiles are sealed and look in good shape but some are “drummy”. The SC believes that it has grounds under 106,3 amd 106.4 to deny the costly repairs as they do not breach any of those exclusions. Do you think we are on reasonable grounds?
Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.