- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
One recent issue in our strata scheme is the replacement/repair of flyscreens with some owners arguing it is the OC's responsibility and others saying it should be at the owner's cost.
The issue has arisen since some owners were granted exclusive use to enclose their old balconies. However the relevant by-law that was passed does not mention flyscreens, only windows. So those owners paid to install their own windows but now the dispute is who pays to repair or replace the flyscreens which of course are on common property but attached to the outside of the window frames.
I am happy either way but would just like to hear what the legal position is.
Tonto
-
Replies
-
I believe it states in the NSW Strata By Laws (do not have my copy near by) that though an owner/resident cannot change common property without permission, when it is for security or protect against insects then you can do it, or words to that effect.
Personally, I just changed the flyscreen on my front door myself. All the materials cost about $15 and the job took about 20 mins (and I am not that handy a person). I did not change the look of the front door (it had flyscreen on it already).
To get someone to do it, via the strata manager, would probably add $60 for handypersons time to the bill (not to mention the materials would probably cost a bit more too) so the job would be about $80. Multiply that my how many flyscreens are in the complex. I have actually offered to do this for my neighbours who are older and not able to do the job themselves.
Check the state by laws for the clausing referring to changing common property.
With respect to your question of whether an owners corporation can pass a motion that requires all owners to be responsible for replacement of their fly screens, according to recent research, an owners corporation can be held liable if a child falls through a flyscreen which has not been installed adequately and does not have the proper locking devices (see https://nsw.stratacommunity.org.au/resources/745).
Owners and the owners corporation ought to ensure that the flyscreens installed in the scheme meet the BCA requirements to ensure the safety of owners and occupiers of the lots. The replacement of flyscreens affect the safety of the building and the appearance of the property and therefore, ought to remain the responsibility of the owners corporation.
Kind regards
Simone Balsara
Simone
I think we're going way off track here. Flyscreens should NEVER be seen as either a child safety restraint nor indeed an anti-burglary device. Most of them have very flimsy frames, and are attached by little plastic lugs which are often further weakened by exposure to UV radiation. The screens themselves are usually of fibreglass material and are not very strong, they can be pushed out from the frames easily as they're only held in by plastic beading. They are not generally designed to take the weight of a child falling against them. I believe the only way to stop children falling from windows is to restrict their opening or put bars on them, in the latter case it could mean compromising adult safety in the event of a fire in the building for example.
DaveB
Dear DaveB
Agreed, flyscreens are not child safety restraints. However, studies have shown that there are an increasing number of child-related injuries and deaths from window falls. Please see report below –
https://kidshealth.chw.edu.au/sites/kidshealth.chw.edu.au/files/attachments/758/outcomes_report.pdf
If the flyscreens are the original flyscreens installed at the time the scheme was registered, and remains to be the Owners Corporation's responsibility, the Owners Corporation should be aware of the risks and possible liability for failing to ensure the safety of owners and occupants in their building. The report above also discusses the impact on emergency escapes- “Escape through windows of higher buildings such as multi-level apartment buildings is less likely therefore fire safety issues in latching or guarding windows in these types of buildings is not as significant.”
Kind regards
Simone Balsara
We should read the article in today's Herald where an OC denied approval to put safety nets on a balcony in a unit where children lived.
The model by-laws adopted by most strata schemes would allow owners to put such devices up, at their own expense, provided they were competently installed and in keeping with the rest of the building. Similarly with window locking devices, which could be used to restrict opening of the window.
The comments on the article submitted on-line are very interesting, ranging from the expected “bad body corporate” to those who think the residents should bear their own responsibility for child safety. When I consider what is fair and equitable why should those owners without children in their unit have to subsidise installation of devices of those who do? Should all owners have to pay for devices in all units, when only a minority of units have any use for them? If these are to be a requirement, why doesn't the developer put them in in the first place?
The emergency escape issue is very valid, as fire brigade aerial equipment can reach up to 6 stories from ground. In many of the three storey blocks around, there is only one stairwell and if that is blocked the only way to get anyone out is via a window or balcony.
DaveB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.