- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Can the appearance of the garage roller door to the apartment carpark be changed by a member of the Strata committee without the knowledge of the rest of the Strata committee?
Communication and decision making is problematic and decisions often get made by the same one or two people (Chairperson and Treasurer).
I and others on the committee knew nothing about the garage roller door renovation until suddenly one day the garage door had a completely outlandish new look.
As yet I’ve not contacted our Strata manager as he often refers back to these same two people, who do not like their actions being questioned.
Any advice on what to do would be greatly appreciated .
-
Replies
-
I would look to your rules/by-laws/articles on unit alterations. In many places it takes an unopposed resolution or a special resolution of a general meeting to approve altering the appearance of a unit. In some places a committee decision is sufficient or it is empowered to make certain classes of decision within guidelines. Rarely has an owners corporation resolved to allow a complete laissez-faire.
I would interpret this as the primary garage roller door which provides access to the underground car parking or similar. What may of happened is that the roller door was damaged by a vehicle which rendered it inoperatable (the door that is) and had to be replaced asap to preserve security and in that instance the fact that they were unable to source same as original became a minor concern ?
The entrance door or gate to a communal car park is common property, not lot property. In fact, many doors on individual garages are common property too.
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.
If the door to the communal parking area were damaged and the committee repaired it by replacing it, then I would say the committee is carrying out one of its functions which is to repair and maintain the common property. It often occurs that an identical replacement is not available and a committee has to do the best it can to find a reasonable, near equivalent. So far, so good.
If the committee has replaced a part of the common property with something of “a completely outlandish new look”, then the committee would seem to have gone beyond proper repair and maintenance. Presumably, the committee don’t think it looks ‘outlandish’ and perhaps they have a reason for the non-identical replacement. Perhaps the door needed replacement anyway and this door functions better in some respect or perhaps it was the only sort they could get for the situation?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.