New owner’s liability for delayed repair

Thank you kaindub and Flame Tree. I had a feeling I might be worrying unduly, as you say, but it was a scenario I’d not encountered before.

An update: our contact at our strata management company (who has admitted to me on the phone that they are “new to strata”) is providing advice that doesn’t make sense to me. They are insisting that the roof replacement is a “pre-existing matter” and that the new owners of the unit “are not required to contribute or be involved” for that reason. [That could be ambiguous, but in the context I’m interpreting contribute as “contribute funds”.]

As has been pointed out, much may depend on the date of settlement (if six weeks after sale it’s probably imminent) and how that aligns with our current decision-making (quotes have been received for consideration, we will shortly need to work what new special levy will need to be raised, so also imminent). Given past experience with the speed at which our SC moves, the levy discussion will likely follow settlement, so – for the sake of discussion – let’s say the new owners would be installed.

Given that, I can’t see how it would be right for the cost of the roof to be split between five owners rather than six, which is what the strata manager seems to be saying, simply because the roof’s bad state of repair was known prior to the sale and the process of having it replaced (but not the work itself) had begun.

I would have thought that, if a new special levy needs to be raised – post settlement of the sold unit – that the new owners would need to contribute their share. (And if pre-settlement, then the previous owners would be contributing.) I can’t imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate for that levy to be split only five ways. The fact that the roof was in need of replacement at the time of sale (“pre-existing matter”?) or that we’d attempted to take action on the matter would surely not be relevant, especially since we are effectively starting over. Am I wrong to think this?

I’d like to go back to the strata manager, or perhaps their senior manager, for clarification. My gut feeling is that “new-to-strata” person has misunderstood or even just explained things poorly. But I’d like be better prepared for such a discussion.

Is there a published source to which I can refer that covers this kind of thing? Or a recommended source of alternative advice?

[Background summary: Roof in need of replacement. Quotes sought, work order issued, additional funds raised through special levy over a year ago. Work was never begun or even scheduled. We are now effectively starting over, and have obtained new quotes. The money from the original special levy is sitting in the kitty, earmarked for the roof replacement. Looking at the quotes that have come in, we will almost certainly need to raise additional funds with a new special levy. This will be a decision we’ll likely be taking before the end of April or early May. One of the units was sold in early March. Settlement on that sale may be imminent, i.e. also before the end of April.]

Well… I’m not sure that the buyers would necessarily have known that a second special levy was coming. We only resolved to start afresh and obtain new quotes early in March. And it was only at that point that we realised we’d need more in the kitty to pay for the replacement and thus a fresh levy. At which point the unit had just been declared sold.

Minutes from the EGM in early 2022 would have revealed that a special levy had been raised for the roof replacement (obviously with the previous owner paying their share). I can’t recall offhand if the minutes of the AGM four months later documented that the work hadn’t yet been scheduled. The “paper trail”, such as it is, would be in email correspondence between our strata managers (yes, strata not building) and the members of the SC (all owners, as it’s a small building) rather than the annual meeting minutes.

I mean, if a buyer sees evidence of a relatively recent levy for a roof replacement, you’d think they’d enquire as to the status of that job, given that it’s a major work. But it’s possible, I guess, that they might have assumed the work was progress, or at least scheduled, and as a result there would be no obligations on their part. I don’t believe the owners’ corp gave out bad info because we weren’t asked, but of course I don’t know what information may have been sought from our strata management company or what questions were asked of the vendors.