- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
We have a tenant who is requesting installation of a hand rail on an internal common property staircase. It is the first flight of stairs and was compliant with all building codes etc. Higher floors have rails.
The problem is, this is an old building with a narrow staircase. Fridges just fit (as in, with 2cm room) around the u turn on the landings. Other residents from higher floors might be unable to remove their belongings, and it would make it much more difficult for new residents to move in.
What is our obligation here? It is an elderly tenant and for their own safety it sounds like they should be living in a ground floor apartment. They are a tenant not an owner so I’m unsure why they wouldn’t just move. I understand moving is difficult but no one is getting any younger!
If we did put a rail in and then residents on higher floors couldn’t remove their belongings, what would we do?
-
Replies
-
Do an online search for “recessed handrails” – stylish and discreet.
More expensive than a bannister on brackets, less costly (in terms of stress, at least) than a war of words at a Tribunal.
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.
I’m not a builder, but maybe an RSJ (rolled steel joist or I-beam) cut into the wall should hold it, then add the fancy stuff later. Amazing what you can do with an angle grinder and a mallet.
But seriously, it’s worth reading this factsheet. It starts off about wheelchairs but moves on to say this:
There is no obligation on a body corporate to specifically go and do things to make the building compliant with the various codes for differently abled persons. If it was up-to-code when it was built, it remains that way unless someone raises it as an issue.
The question of whether or not a body corporate has a duty to modify common property to facilitate easier access for residents generally depends on the answers to the following key questions:
(a) Are there disabled residents in the strata scheme?
(b) If so, is the requirement for those disabled residents to travel through the presently available pedestrian routes on common property to get to and from their lots not reasonable having regard to the circumstances?
(c) Would the modifications to the common property pedestrian routes requested by disabled residents impose unjustifiable hardship on the owners corporation?
If a resident needed something upgraded to suit their circumstances, then their request is likely to be successful.
Food for thought.
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.
Put it to the committee. They vote having considered pros and cons to collective owners, and the desires of tenants. If it gets up it’s added, but if not nothing changes. For the reasons you’ve mentioned that detract from the idea, and if it’s not a legislated safety requirement I don’t think I’d be voting for it. Some places just aren’t suitable for some folks, and yes we are all getting older but it’s up to owners to choose these changes, and pay for them, not tenants.
… it’s up to owners to choose these changes, and pay for them, not tenants.
It’s interesting that the Stratacare website quoted above takes great pains to refer to “residents” and not owners or tenants. Suffice it to say that if a duty of care exists, it probably applies to tenants as much as owners.
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.