- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
We live in a small 15-year-old complex of fewer than 12 units including a duplex at the front of the site with underground garages. Only the duplex has underground parking garages.
The garage of one duplex unit has evidence of damp staining and efflorescence on the Bessel block wall. There is no evidence of any liquid penetration but there is enough moisture to cause staining.
Regardless of the reason for the problem, it is not practical to gain access to the outside of the wall which is under paved concrete and gardens.
Apparently water proofing procedures can be applied to the internal wall of the garage, and the question is, should the cost of this treatment be borne by the Lot owner or the owners corporation.
The chairman of the strata committee is of the opinion that the waterproofing treatment equates to painting, and as it is an internal wall, the cost should be borne by the Lot owner. The Lot owner not only believes the water penetration is underground seepage, beyond the control of the owner, but also is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation, as indicated in the examples in the Strata Living Information on the Dept of Fair Trading’s website.
Can anyone offer an opinion? Thank you.
-
Replies
-
I’m assuming you are in NSW. On the basis of the information you have provided I believe it is an OC responsibility.
If the OC is applying waterproofing to the wall to deal with a moisture issue, it seems from what you say that the moisture issue is an OC responsibility. The only reason you are applying waterproofing is because of the moisture issue, and for that reason you can’t equate it with painting.
I suggest that the OC get some further advice regarding water penetration, its possible source and any risk to the stability of that wall. If it doesn’t it could be in for a world of pain in the future.
I agree that the OC should seek professional advice.
And to note that wet walls in underground parking areas are actually quite common and are not necessarily a building fault. Those areas are are typically NCC/BCA Class 7, even if the building above is Class 2.
Class 7 areas have different waterproofing requirements and need not be 100% dry. Walls can even be purposely designed to get wet, in which case, while they don’t look pretty, interior waterproofing of them can be a mistake. AFAIK, those types of walls are not the structural elements of the building.
Austman is correct, garages are ‘non-habitable’ and hence water penetration is not seen as wrong.
Austman is correct, garages are ‘non-habitable’ and hence water penetration is not seen as wrong.
Unless it was an indication of seepage from outside that was potetially damaging the structure?
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.
Unless it was an indication of seepage from outside that was potetially damaging the structure?
I think that’s right. Which is why the OC should get professional advice. Sometimes it can be part of the design or harmless. I know of several buildings like that. Other times it might be a important building defect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.