Magnesite bylaw and powers of OC re lot owners

We’re a 1970s block of 18 units near the beach in Sydney, so there’s a decent risk of concrete cancer.
I’ve been agitating for years for the OC to appreciate the potential risk of magnesite screed and figure the best way to manage it.

About five owners, including me, have taken the opportunity while doing renovations to get rid of the magnesite at our own cost. The advice of two strata managers has been that the, unless the magnesite was deteriorating, the OC wasn’t obliged to do anything – and that, even then, it only had to replace any section that had gone bad, not necessarily the lot.

Fair enough, I guess.

Now the SC at last has managed to get a bylaw on magnesite drafted and intends to put it to the OC at the next general meeting.

My concern is that it’s full of holes and wouldn’t last a minute at the tribunal.

In essence, the bylaw says any owner renovating a kitchen, laundry or the entire lot must remove the magnesite from the kitchen, laundry or entire lot, without any inspection, regardless of condition, and at their own cost.

This despite its being well established that magnesite screed is common property and, therefore, the responsibility of the OC.

I asked the lawyers how the OC could force a lot owner to do the OC’s job as this seems to be contrary to any number of sections of the Act (eg, 106 on OC’s responsibility re common property; 108 (5) (a) re lot owner having to give written consent to take on the OC’s responsibility; sections 142-145; plus 136 (1) and 139 (1) that bylaws must not be “unjust … harsh, unconscionable or oppressive”).

The answer (amid a torrent of legalese) seems to be no more than that it’s an administrative bylaw under section 136 (1). Hmm.

To further complicate the draft bylaw, owners wanting to replace carpet must notify the OC and allow an inspection of the magnesite screed.

In this case, if it’s found to be faulty, the OC will pay for it to be removed. Leaving aside that replacing carpet is cosmetic work that doesn’t need OC approval, why would the OC pay in this case, but not otherwise? The logic eludes me.

Surely the way to go about managing magnesite is regular inspections under section 122 and also if an owner asks approval to carry out renovations affecting the floor.

In the case of regular inspections, if there’s a problem found with the magnesite, then the OC should step in and pay to have it repaired or removed.

In the case of extensive renovations, the OC should step in and pay to have all the screed removed regardless. Eventually we’d get rid of it all from the building.

Am I missing something or is this proposed bylaw as barmy as it seems?

Greatly appreciate any thoughts and being set right where I may be wrong.

• This topic was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by .