- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
An owner in our three unit townhouse complex is claiming recovery of the cost of an unauthorised complete renovation of an upper level bathroom in his Lot on the basis that there was a leaking shower recess caused by defective waterproofing which also caused damage to the underfloor timbers. The original claim was submitted more than two years after the work was done and neither the OC nor the SM was ever given the opportunity to inspect the damage or obtain alternative quotes even when the damaged woodwork was discovered during the course of the renovation.
The bathroom is totally contained within the Lot, has no common walls with another lot and only the wall furthest away from the damage is on a boundary wall. No other lot was affected by the damage.
The OC rejected the original claim and also a lower amended claim. However, the OC accepts there was probably a waterproofing problem, and perhaps damaged underfloor timber, and resolved to consider an ex-gratia payment to cover repairs to such. This was rejected by the claimant who has now threatened legal action for full recovery of his claim.
The main two questions here are “Are the three walls not on the boundary internal walls and thus the Lot owners responsibility?” and ”Does the OC have any responsibility for other than the bathroom floor?”
-
Replies
-
The internal walls are not common property, thus they are the responsibility of the owner. The floor is common property, so the owner should have organised repair through the Owners corporation, giving them the opportunity to obtain competitive quotes and employ suitably qualified and insured tradespeople. Also the owner is not entitled to upgrade the bathroom using a higher grade of tiling than originally installed. In my opinion, I’d be telling the owner concerned that if he didn’t like the settlement offered he was welcome to try his chances at legal action.
I agree with you DaveB. Trouble is of course that the OC will have to incur legal costs to defend itself but that may be how it has to be. It doesn’t affect your opinion but I should have mentioned that there are also no services passing through the Lot to any other lot. I have had to personally bear the brunt of this argument for 15 months now and I am quite angry about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.