- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi Jimmy / all,
I live in a strata of three apartments over two levels. I am on the lower level with two apartments on the upper level who have exclusive use rights to the ‘roofspace’. The two owners on the upper level wish to carry out renovations including adding an extra level to their apartments and register this additional area on title. I have no objections with their proposal in principle however I believe they should compensate the Owners Corporation for this additional area being registered (new value – (original value + cost of renovation, including legals), from your previous posts). Or is this not the case as they already have ‘exclusive use’ rights? From previous posts I understand they cannot proceed with the works without a special resolution.
Further, I cant find a definition for ‘roofspace’. I would consider the ‘roofspace’ as above the ceiling line however below the roof line with the area above the roof considered common property ‘airspace’ (if there is such a definition).
If their proposed renovations go ahead I understand the lot allocation should be reassessed as they will have a significant amount more floor space which would lower my lot share to below 25% however I do not want to lose special resolution voting rights. Although my levy fees would be higher for my floor space allocation can I hold on to my 30%?
Thanks again in advance.
-
Replies
-
The first thing that occurs here is that, although the upstairs owners have exclusive use rights to the roofspace, it doesn’t mean it belongs to them. In fact, it may well mean the opposite – the roofspace is common property but only they have the right to use it. The same principle applies to balconies in most modern apartment blocks.
So, yes, you can probably block the renovations unless they are done on your terms.
Those terms might include that the owners take full responsibility, individually and collectively, for any alterations to the the common property (a standard provision) and that all three of you agree to a redistribution of the unit entitlements so that you retain 26 per cent of the UEs and they have 37 per cent each.
You needn’t seek any compensation for the effective purchase of common property but they would pay all legal fees for setting all this up via an experienced strata lawyer of your choice (and I highly recommend either of our sponsors Sachs Gerace or Bannermans – see ads at the top of the page).
Failure to agree to any of these very reasonable conditions might well trigger your objection to the plan.
I’m sure there’s a nicer way of putting all that, but if you want to retain some level of control over the big decisions in the building, that would be my approach. And I would have a chat to a lawyer right now.
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.
Just to clarify, why does the (new value – (original value + cost of renovation, including legals) not apply in this situation?
I didn’t say it didn’t apply, just that it needn’t apply. This could be a bargaining chip to get your way in terms of them paying for all the legals, taking responsibility for the common property and changing the unit entitlements. The amounts might be quite small once all the expenses are taken into account but they shouldn’t be dismissed at the initial stage. Your lawyer will advise.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.