Question: I need to turn off the water to the building to replace my isolation tap below the laundry sink. Should I contact the corporate body to advise about the water stoppage?
The tap that isolates my unit’s water is under our laundry sink. It needs replacing.
As the water will need to be turned off to the building to replace this tap, do residents have to be notified?
Should I organise a plumber or contact the body corporate? Please outline the steps I need to take.
Answer: If you require a water stoppage to the building, you would contact the body corporate manager or committee and arrange a time.
There is no fixed protocol for handling these requests, although it is a common issue.
Generally, if you require a water stoppage to the building, you would contact the body corporate manager or committee and arrange a time it can be done. Depending on how long you require the stoppage, the body corporate might ask for a reasonable period of notice so they can advise occupants. They may also stipulate time periods in which the work can occur, say from 9 am to 3 pm, to avoid disruption to other residents.
The body corporate can’t really say no to a request like this. The legislation requires you to maintain your property in good condition and occasional water stoppages are unavoidable. However, it is important the request is reasonable. If you just call up when the plumber is onsite and ask to turn off the water, the response may be negative.
This post appears in Strata News #677.
William Marquand
Tower Body Corporate
E: willmarquand@towerbodycorporate.com.au
P: 07 5609 4924
Our apartment building is nearly 25 years old. Is there a timeframe for when areas that are not common property and require maintenance and repairs need to be fully paid for by the Body corporate?
Hi Karen
The obligation to keep parts of common property or a lot in good condition is preventative. So there is no “timeframe” as such. It must always be in that standard of good condition.
Areas that are not common property are not always the responsibility of the body corporate. Usually the lot owner is responsible. However there are a number of exceptions depending on the type of survey plan and the component in need of repair.
We live in an apartment building of 14 floors with the 14th floor comprising 8 penthouses. Each penthouse has a rooftop terrace with outdoor kitchens, in some cases spas etc. Obviously, these areas are not common property. If a penthouse owner claims that their terrace needs to have all tiles pulled up, waterproofing works to be undertaken, completely retiled, kitchen replaced etc, should all costs be covered by the Body corporate or can the owner be asked to contribute to the costs of repairs?
To provide an answer to this you would need to review all of the scheme’s documentation so it is not something we can definitively respond to here.
However, given that you have multiple lots in a similar situation and that any repairs are likely to be expensive we would recommend that the scheme engages a strata specialist solicitor to provide advice on this situation. This will then give the body corporate and owners a clear point of reference and understanding over responsibility for the area and will help determine how you handle management of the rooftop moving forward. Hopefully too it would reduce the need for any argument or dispute.
Otherwise, for help on these matters I often refer to this excellent article from My Body Corporate Report:
https://mybodycorpreport.com.au/body-corporate-balconies/
Who is responsible for drainage around the common property to reduce rising damp into a concrete slab? Who is responsible for mould removal caused by rising damp because of poor block drainage?
Who is responsible for floor replacement damage by rising damp caused by poor block drainage?
There are many factors that can affect maintenance responsibility but essentially you need to know what format your scheme is in – standard or building format – and whether the drains that are causing the issue are on your land or body corporate land. If you contact your body corporate manager or committee they should be able to provide you with some definition of this. You can also find out yourself by reviewing scheme documents. If you look through the BCCM website you can find guides on responsibility.
What you need to know is that any answer you receive will have to consider multiple factors. A good committee and body corporate manage should be able to consider the information and show you that it has done so in respect to the legislation. If you can’t get that help from those parties you may need to research yourself or seek outside assistance.
I own a unit in a high rise building on the Gold Coast. For each 2 units per floor they have 1 shared laundry. Each laundry contains 2 Hot water systems (1 for each unit owner controlled by each unit owners electricity switchboard/supply)
The laundry also contains 1 washing machine and 1 dryer which is shared meaning if either requires maintenance or replacement each unit owner splits the cost 50/50. The laundry also contains 2 power outlets with locks on them with each one controlled by a unit that controls the electricity to that outlet from the switchboard meaning either unit can isolate the power to their exclusive use power outlet for obvious reasons.
Here lies the problem. The light and the light switch for the shared laundry is not controlled by either units switchboard meaning neither unit can isolate the electricity to the light and light switch. The light in the laundry has fused and the Body Corporate nor the building maintenance department refuse to repair or replace the light fitting as they keep saying it is the responsibility of the unit owners to repair or replace despite the fact the electricity to the laundry is not controlled by either units switchboard but originates from common building electricity switchboard and supply wiring. Body Corporate will not budge on this. They say we are responsible for all maintenance within the shared laundry. That would imply that we are responsible for the wiring inside the walls ands ceiling and the plumbing also and the paint on the walls and the tiles or carpet on the floor or the door hanging on hinges etc etc. This seems outside the realms of common sense.
How many body corporate members does it take to change a light bulb? Quite a few in this instance it seems.
Ultimately, if you are unhappy with a decision of the body corporate you have to proceed the matter through the commissioner’s office. This applies no matter how small the issue.
Other alternatives could be to submit a motion to the body corporate or committee to either have the bulb repaired or have a legal review of the documentation to determine the issue.
Have you got a quote for the repair? Depending on what it is you can also consider fixing the bulb and moving on. Maybe not the ideal solution but life is short. Perhaps you could put the quote to the body corporate and put the same idea to them.
Hi there. We live in a 15 unit (7 floors) complex in New Farm. The penthouse level has a rear balcony that is over the top of the bedrooms of the floors below. The balcony is common property and the body corporate is wanting to replace the membrane due to leaks being experienced in the units below. The membrane is covered by two layers of tiles, installed by previous owners. We understand that the BC is responsible for the removal and replacement costs for the tiles as it would have previously approved the lot improvement, is that correct? I read that the condition of the tiles and if they have been maintained may also be a factor?
We also have a 2nd membrane over common area where the owner wants to install tiles at their cost, this would also be considered an improvement. However, if in the future the membrane needs replacing again, why should the BC pay for the tile replacement? If there were no tiles, then it would be a simple matter of replacing the membrane. Subsequent owners would not be aware of any approvals and conditions made by the BC at the time? Can the BC refuse the request for tiles given the possible future BC liability for tile replacement?
Hi Alan
On your first query – there are a number of factors that will determine who is responsible for the incidental costs of the tiles including:
1. whether approval was obtained;
2. what the conditions of approval were (if it were obtained); and
3. whether there is any evidence that the improvement contributed to the deterioration of the membrane.
On your second query – the request could be refused if it were reasonable to do so. The increased burden of maintenance costs may be sufficient. However, it would also need to take into account any conditions of approval that are relevant. For example, the lot owner may seek approval on the basis that they remain responsible for any increased burden.
There are two different articles by two different people (William Marquand & Todd Garsden) in LookUp Strata#608 of Oct5th 2022, filed under two different headings in two different categories., ie Maintenance and Common Pty (QLD, and Committee Concerns re Spending Limits (QLD). Both, however, seem to deal with variations on a common theme, ie application of BC funds to BC work -v- non-BC work.
This is not criticism of anyone. It just demonstrates to me how difficult it is to get a clear picture of what we are dealing with in QLD’s strata law, which I find endlessly frustrating. I do not know how the Commissioner’s people and how the strata professionals keep on top of things.
Hello. We purchased our apartment about a year ago. We chose this building out of a large choice simply because it has a theatrette. We had prior sold our house that had a media room/theatrette. We are devotees of film and have a large collection of DVDs representing all genres and critically acclaimed works by international directors. We also seek particular films on-line for purchase, and frequently trawl the extensive, and expanded upon collections in public libraries. Simply put, in choosing our apartment we bought a theatrette.
The theatrette in our building must be booked, and is then in blocks of 3 hours for our exclusive use. The building is 11 years old, and so is the theatrette where historically it has only been for the watching of DVDs. We take our own DVDs but are also offered a selection of DVDs from reception if desired. We may invite a friend or two for an evening of dinner and film sharing. This includes family members who’ve converted 8mm and super-8 film, and VHS tapes into DVDs of family gatherings from the 1950s.
Last week our world was shattered. We found out that our Body Corps has stolen our purchased facility by installing a system that totally disallows DVDs. The new system only has the capacity for you to plug into your own paid for streaming service. Our interest in the films offered on Netflix etc is close to nil. The only reason we subscribed to it is for some acclaimed series, but have no idea how you would even be able watch any series in limited instalments in a booked theatrette as most people view them either in nightly instalments or they are binge watched. That means they would only be viewed on TV at home, making the slim pickings of film on Netflix etc all that is available for our poor residents in our sad theatrette.
It’s also widely reported that streaming services are suffering from mass cancellation due to tired and repetitious themes and too many players. We had reached this point of cancellation about 6 months ago. Netflix et al are also planning to air ads during viewing to make up for lost revenue. This is appalling.
We have yet to approach the body corps about this extremely uninformed and naïve decision they have made on behalf of owner/residents. We view it as outright stealth of something we had purchased. It’s also degradation of an asset.
Any advice would be appreciated as we intend to do something about this distressing loss.
Thank you. Appreciated.
Kind regards,
Wendy
Hi Wendy
Chris Irons, Hynes Legal has responded to your comment within this article: QLD: Q&A Who Can Access Common Property?
Hi Chris, thank you for your response. This all proves to us that we are not living in the right environment. Regardless of the possibility we may be in the minority, it seems only decent, if nothing else, that the the body corp should make such a decision without prior discussion with owners. We find their decision naïve and uniformed, and frankly, unsophisticated. We live in a 50 storey tower, its twin next door is 40 storeys. Even if we are in the minority, there still must be a considerable amount of residents negatively impacted by this.
And how can one watch a Netflix series like Ozark by having to sporadically book sessions?
It’s not understood why they have chosen streaming only. In this hi-tech age there must surely have been an option to include both streaming and DVDs. Last week Netflix sacked a quarter of their employees due to a downturn in sales. Does the body corp then expect residents to pay for multiple streaming services to try and bulk up some level of quality film viewing? “Ugh, as if!” (Clueless) And what about residents suddenly being forced into paying for a common area facility paid for by strata fees when they’ve never subscribed to a service?
I will take your advice and simply ask the question about why they have chosen to do this. I will be polite. “I’m co-operatin’….Darn tootin!” (Fargo). I will then ask if they can in some way reinstate an ability for watching DVDs. When the answer is no, it’s Jean Paul Sartre not a film quote that comes to mind: “Hell is other people!” We will then put our very expensive, supposedly up-market, apartment on the market and buy another house instead.
Have enjoyed our simpatico correspondence. Thank you again.
RE Tower and the blocked sewer pipes #569.
Four apartments, stacked on top of each other. If the blockage is downstream, so to speak, of the ground floor unit… oh my goodness. Happened to me in a hotel in Montana a couple of years ago, Was offered a discount.
Reminds me of a story by Ruth Ostrow (The Australian) under Holidays from Hell. She was staying in a brand new multi-story hotel in a 3rd world country – it was the first such building in this country – where the toilets traditionally were just a hole in the floor. The builder had Installed the same type in the new building, and lined them up vertically from top to bottom, so to speak, presumably with a plumb bob. When you went to the toilet on the lower floors, it was best to have an umbrella.
How can you find out if the security screens were part of the original building or were placed there by owners?
We live in a 2 storey unit with a balcony on the first floor and having its entrance through the master bedroom. The balustrades fixings to the balcony timber decking is having rust and also the rotten wooden handrails. Some portion of the timber decking have a wood decay as well. This makes the balcony unsafe to use. Who is responsible i.e. owner or body coorporate for fixing/repairs of these issues?
I live in a relatively new high rise apartment complex in Queenland. The apartment is fitted with downlights installed in the ceiling. Is the replacement of a blown light my responsibility or is this ceiling light a Body Corporate responsibility, i.e. common property.
I ask this question because if individual owners start replacing these lights, the building will have no common light setting and will end up like a Christmas tree.
Light bulbs within the unit are the lot owners responsibility. I have never heard of a consideration for having a common light setting and such a thing would likely not be possible. Owners are entitled to have lights at a brightness level that suits them.
I want to replace the existing sliding door and windows with byfold doors. Do I need to get approval from body Corp for this improvement?
Yes, you should advise the body corporate manager of what you intend to do and either the committee of general body corporate would need to provide approval.
unit bought 3 years ago,. 30 year old+, 2 units first floor 3 bottom. Floor waste pipe (inlet was there but not joined up) that joined to external pipes was removed or never there. subsequent investigations revealed that Pipe work situated in exterior wall that takes waste water from the bathroom facilities are not to standard and are not fitted with relief valves where it exits into underneath units ceiling. No person found to be responsible after investigation ordered by Commission (they have closed case but can ask for intervention etc ). They stated that if no one could be found then it would be Body Corporates responsibility to repair/replace. Est cost 18000-20000 Is this a correct ruling.
In our unit block most units have balconies or patio that form part of the unit entitlement. Are the windows and doors that open onto these patios/balconies (albeit on the outside of the building) the responsibility of the owner or Body Corp to maintain and repair/replace?
If the patio / balcony is on your property it is your responsibility
I have been involved with a similar scenario, but with a twist. The front doors/firedoors leading from the common property into the individual units – and thereby the responsibility of the body corporate (BC)- were filled with asbestos. Professional advice was received that as long as the asbestos was undisturbed, there was no inherent need to replace the doors simply because of the presence of the asbestos. Over the years a number of unit owners had installed peepholes and/or deadlocks without BC permission. The professional advisor advised that this had disturbed the asbestos, and these doors needed to be replaced. The committee followed this advice, and pursued the owners for the replacement cost.
I’m not too sure what the law is, but this seems a reasonable approach to me. You break it….you fix it.