Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8410
    Flat-mate
    Flatchatter

      On Thursday 20th on ABC 702 afternoons, I thought Jimmy said that repairs paid for by BC as a result of storm water leakage should include the painting of the ceiling as well. A phone call to Office of Fair Trading resulted in a contradictory answer; “Painting on your inside walls is NEVER paid for by BC”. If indeed this is not the case can you direct me to the relevant section in the Office of Fair Trading documents so that I can follow this up. 

    Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #16589
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster


        @Flat-mate
        said:
        On Thursday 20th on ABC 702 afternoons, I thought Jimmy said that repairs paid for by BC as a result of storm water leakage should include the painting of the ceiling as well. A phone call to Office of Fair Trading resulted in a contradictory answer; “Painting on your inside walls is NEVER paid for by BC”. If indeed this is not the case can you direct me to the relevant section in the Office of Fair Trading documents so that I can follow this up. 

        As soon as the words were out of my mouth I thought, this poor lady is going to phone some numpty at Fair Trading and they are going to trot out the party line that paint is always the responsibility of the owner. And the usual excuse for that is that the OC’s insurance doesn’t cover it.

        This may also be the line in the “who’s responsible” document.  It may even be the line at the CTTT.  But in common law, if you are responsible for damage to another person’s property, you pay for it.

        Let me make an analogy.  You have a nice ornate letterbox on your lawn.  I accidentally leave the handbrake off my car and it rolls on to your lawn and knocks your letterbox over.  My insurers say, “Sorry mate, we only cover you for damage you do on the road.  This was a lawn so we’re not paying.”  I could say that since the insurers won’t pay then I don’t have to – but that would be wrong. All it means is I pay out of my own pocket. The car is my responsibility and I have to pay for the damage it caused, especially since it was due to a failure to maintain and repair it.

        The “who’se responsible” document clearly states that the Owners Corp is responsible for damage caused by effecting repairs – this would include painting patched holes in ceilings.  It also seems to say that OCs aren’t responsible for the damage caused by the thing that needed repairing in the first place.  This makes ZERO sense.

        So I’m going to go out on a limb (again) and say forget strata law, forget Fair Trading and forget the CTTT because they won’t order anyone to pay for anything.  If the OC won’t pay for damage caused by a failure of Common Property – which they are legally responsible for maintaining and repairing without limit – go straight to your district court and ask for an order in their small claims division. You can find out more about that HERE. I’m betting any magistrate worth their salt will look at section 62 of the Strata Act which says:

        An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation.

        That’s the law. And then they will look at the the “who’s responsible’ memorandum, which isn’t law, and say “makes no sense – pay the lady.”

        There is nothing is strata law that says an Owners Corporation isn’t responsible for damage caused by a failure of common property and that’s all you need to know.

        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.
      Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
      • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

      Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page