- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I live in a dysfunctionally run block of 10 apartments in NSW. We don’t have committee meetings, there are no office bearers appointed and the strata manager turns up once a year for the AGM to wave their management agreement under our nose for renewal and signature.
Appointing a new SM would be a futile exercise due to the personalities involved and the unreasonable behaviour of the SC. This brings me to my grievance below.
One owner seems to be in the ear of the SM as she has been the longest resident. She wants her bath replaced as it ‘has a hole in it’. The SM has issued a work order with the cost of the same at $6,000. Am email was received yesterday from the SM to the 4 members of the SC outlining the scope.
I am of the opinion that these repairs are not common property as the bath is a fixture and the owner is responsible for the entire cost of the bath replacement including tiles. I might add, the tradesman did a temporary epoxy fix which failed and the OC paid the bill of $700 for it.
A summary of the issue is below. Can I get some opinions as to who is responsible for this bill?
The bath/shower’s waterproofing membrane has failed. The following work is required to repair the waterproofing correctly:
1. Remove and store the (shower screen), spout fitting (taps) & (vanity) for replacement at the completion of the works.
2. Remove the wall tiles around the bath (only bottom row), and remove brick sidewall of bath and the bath*. Remove and dispose of old bath.
3. Waterproof the exposed substrate with a suitable and approved membrane.
4. Install new bath & brick up face of bath.
5. Install new tiles to the rectified areas to make good.
6. Seal junctions of the bath & re-install the original bath fittings, and **original shower screen.
QUOTE: $6,000.00
-
Replies
-
According to the “Who’s responsible …” Memorandum issued by the state government, the lot owner is responsible for the fixtures, fittings and tapware in the bathroom, while the owners corp is responsible for the original tiles and waterproofing (with some exceptions).
However, what complicates this is that the OC is also responsible for replacing or repairing any lot property that is damaged during a repair to common property.
Looking at the work outlined above, the taps and shower screen are all going to be reinstated and the brickwork and tiles are to be repaired and/or replaced – which brings us to the question of the bath.
The hole in the bath is not OC responsibility, but if the bath can’t be removed and replaced without significantly damaging it, then it should be replaced at the OC’s expense.
By the way, if the bath was damaged accidentally (rather than through wear and tear) the lot owner could probably make a claim through strata insurance.
I would try to ascertain whether or not the bath could reasonably be replaced intact in its current state. If not, then the OC is up for the cost of its replacement. If it could be put back, regardless of its present state, then the lot owner should be asked to pay for a new bath if they don’t want the old one reinstalled.
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.