Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Ther are a lot of things in this and Jimmy is correct in the use of the “who's responsible” document. It is very useful as a guide.
Your issue is more complex and deals with the law of nuisance overlayed with responsiblities of the OC in maintaining its property and then finally insurance issues.
The basics are that the OC must maintain its property. If it does not maintain its property and it casues damage then any resultant damage may also be the responsibility of the OC. This is where insurers step in some times.
If the damage is an 'insurable event” (like a burst pipe) then insurers will step in and pay for the repairs (including the resultant damage). Some insurers will indemnify 100% (including painting etc) others not. That is a contractural issue between the OC and its insurer.
The obligation the OC has to you is different.
Hope this helps. What you need to do is discuss it with hte executive committee and go from there.
It seems that we have created some healthy discussion on the WH&S legislation. In reality people need to generally calm down as the end is not necessarily in sight.
As I have discussed in the papers I have prepared for clients and my discussions with Safe Work Australia there are a number of key concepts.
Firslty if the scheme is entirely residential then you are exempt from obligations. However, when work is being undertaken you will be a work site for the duration of that work.
The old “grey area” will be things like mixed use developments, people working from home (internet businesses or home offices) etc.
The best advice I can give is get an expert to review your circusmtacnes (see the motions in the paper) and whilst you cannot rely on them 100% it should give you sufficient information to make an informed decision.
Before you ask – I don't do the inspections. We prepared the information for the assitance of clients to deal with the new legislation.
I hope this helps.
Colin