- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
i have recently bought a unit which i rented out via an agent. soon after the tenant moved in, they notified the agent of leaks from bathroom above into the kitchen false ceiling and pantry (via pipes behind the pantry). the agent contacted strata and strata commissioned a building firm to investigate the leaks. The investigation was thorough and reported that the leaks were due to waterproof defects and drainage defects in the bathroom, required the bathroom to be pulled out (it is very small) and drainage and waterproofing to be done to industry standards. (Original bathroom plumbing and tiles, only changes in bathroom have been plastic cover over shower screen extending down over front of bath, and new benchtop on vanity).
Strata sent in someone for 2nd investigation, a plumber. That report was only 1 page, was undated, and came up with different findings (that the only problem was the plastic cover over the screen and bath and it was up to me to reseal them). It was only then that I was brought into the picture.
Unfortunately, to do the investigation, the building firm removed the pantry and put it back badly, also cut a sizable hoile in the middle of the kitchen ceiling and left it open with cables hanging out and a red bucket on a plank was visible (the bucket to catch the water leaks in the interim).
The whole thing was a nightmare – the tenant was ropeable about the ugly hole left in the kitchen ceiling with cables hanging out and red plastic bucket and the leaking water over the bathroom floor. I was told by Strata and an Exec member that based on the 2nd report, it was my responsibility. However, given the discrepant findngs of the 2 reports, I wanted to be sure of the cause before proceeding, particularly given the more thorough investigation of the 1st report, I was reluctant to do a band-aid job and possibly leave a more serious structural matter unaddressed. So I asked for, and received, permission from Strata to get a 3rd report at my cost from the water penetration expert of an industry recognised firm (Tyrrells Property Inspections).
The findings of this report were consistent with the findnigs of Strata’s thorough 1st report – defects in waterproofing and drainage requiring the bathroom and laundry to be pulled out and re-installed. I forwarded the report to Strata noting the findings concurred with their 1st report and what next. In the meantime, I had to give the tenant a rent reduction retrospectively as they were so unhappy.
I attended the next ECM as it was clear the rectification work was common property. The ECM authorized me to get 3 quotes to get the rectification work done based on the findings of the 2 concurring reports, one commissioned by them, one by me. I went ahead as authorized (bit more disruption to tenant) and organsied builders to inspect and quote. I have 2 quotes and waiting for the 3rd to come in. This has all taken 3 months but in the meantime, I’ve had someone do the band-aid job of resealing the silicon to reduce the water onto the bathroom floor and someone to do a manhole cover for the kitchen so the tenant is not disrupted any further.
Now, while waiting for the 3rd quote to come in, i’ve been told by Strata that they want to commission yet another investigation (this would be a 4th investigation) and by a specific person. I have said 3 is standard practice, they’ve already commissioned 2, we have concurring findings in the 2 thorough reports, I’ve obtained quotes already at some disruption to tenant and time and cost to builders and myself and this is unreasonable.
They say they can do as many investigations as they like. I don’t want to consent to yet another investigation by their person for 4 reasons.
1. things have moved on and i think its unreasonable and entirely unecessary for reasons above.
2. it looks like a fix – i think they’re trying to get a different outcome.
3. I have confidence in the 2 concurring reports but I have not got any confidence in the 4th investigation they want. I’ve only been there a few months and already its apparent some of his previous assessments in the block on water leaks are no good (and sometimes superficial eg ‘a faulty dishwasher’ seems to be a repeating example that now has to be properly re-assessed). Problems are ongoing and were not solved following his assessments (and in some cases, workswhich were also monitored by him) and have to be re-assessed and re-done months later.
4. If he does a 4th report, and it differs from the other 2 concurring reports – what then? will we have to get another and go for 3 out of 5? or 4 out of 6? it seems to lead us down a complex and dangerous path.
What are my options? It seems to me that 3 investigations with 2 thorough reports concurring (1 by Strata and 1 by me) and having been authorized by ECM to get quotes based on the 2 concurring reports completes the investigation. That will be 6 reports and quotes in all. What are my options? Can they insist on this retrospectively? Would I have a case in mediation? its tricky because obvioulsy i can’t say its a fix and i don’t trust an assessment by this 4th person based on history.
Sorry this has been such a long post. Please don’t put it in print.
I would really appreciate your advice.
regards
-
Replies
-
Hi giri,
Could you please clarify, do the reports find that the defect are in the bathroom above your unit or are they in your unit?
Have the reports identified whether the defects are in common property or the lot owners’s property?
For what work are the quotes that you have obtained?
Regards,
Rob T
Hi giri,
Thanks for the clarifications. My suggestions are as follows.
The key issue to a achieving a speedy rectification of the problem is the confirmation that the leaks are a result of defective common property. If the two professional reports state this and the EC has earlier acknowledges this, you have strong case to insist that the work is completed as soon as practicable. The plumber’s report might not carry the same weight as the consultant’s reports. I say a strong case, but these issues can be complex and the situation can change as more information becomes available and investigations proceed. EC’s do have an obligation to be absolutely confident in their assessment when authorising expenditure of OC money but at the same time have an obligation to address the matter promptly.
From here on, if you are not doing so already, you should be putting all communications in writing. You stand to lose money if it is not handled correctly therefore you should treat this in a businesslike manner as you would do in your job. Verbal communications are fine but all needs to be followed up in writing, email is fine. If you are still in this position in 12 months time, or sooner, you will need a correspondence file to give to your legal adviser.
Being common property repairs, the responsibility for arranging the work and payment is with the Owner Corporation. All written communications therefore need to be to the OC C/- the Strata Manager. The Strata Manager’s job is to see that the EC then deals with communication. There is no problem speaking directly with EC member if they are agreeable, however ensure you follow-up in writing to the OC. Do not pursue EC members individually unless they have been formally nominated to represent the EC on this matter. If the Strata Manager or others do not return calls, send an email.
If the EC wants to do another report, do not simply allow them to without them giving a satisfactory reason for needing to. Again, write and ask them to justify the need. You are the one who is losing as a result of the time it is taking therefore you have a right to receive an explanation. If the report turns out to be unfavourable, you might need to enlist the help from the previous building consultants to comment. I guess in theory the EC could continue to request further reports, but they need to have good reasons. If the reasons are not satisfactory, you can say no.
As a mean of exerting some gentle pressure to progress the matter, I suggest you write immediately (ahead of any further reports) to the OC (in a polite but firm tone) on the basis of the two professional reports confirming a common property defect and include the following:
- State the basis for it being OC’s responsibility, the time taken to date, the disruption is has caused and the costs you have incurred;
- State also that there is potential for further losses if feel that could be the case;
- State that you require the problem be rectified ASAP
- Request a program for the work and the other critical activities dates including quotes received, EC approval, start on site, key disruptions and completion date.
- Ask them to indicate the likely impacts on the tenant so that you can start making arrangements to minimise disruption and any rent adjustment negotiations.
If you are out of Sydney, you will need someone local to represent you , coordinate the tenant and check on the work. This should probably be your managing agent. You will need to brief him on what you want from him.
If the above fails, you might consider obtaining legal advice as other mean could be time consuming.
Now, must apologise for being long winded.
Rob T
PS how did the ‘band-aid’ work turn out. Did the leaks stop?
Hi giri,
I’m sorry, I understood that the reports had confirmed the leaks were due to defective common property.
You really need to establish if it is or is not. This could be why the EC is deliberating. If you haven’t already done so, have a look at the Inst. of Strata Title Management Guide to Common Property. If that’s not any help, ask the building consultant you engaged to advise.
I would be happy to help further but I would really need to have a look at the details to advise further.
Regards,
RobT
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.