Common property or not. | Common Property | Flat Chat Forum: Your Questions Answered




A A A

You must be registered and logged in to reply to posts or post new topics. Click on "How to Use This Forum" for simple instructions on how to get on board. NB: Please do not use your real name or email address as your screen name - if you do it will be changed to something less insecure.

Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Common property or not.
Avatar
butterflyness2006
FlatChatter
Members
Forum Posts: 8
Member Since:
14/05/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
1
13/06/2018 - 2:19 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Trying to work out if a fixed cupboard is Strata’s concern or ours. 

My neighbour and I have a double carport under our 1969 building.  She has one side I have the other. At the back of the wall there is a cupboard that was built and fixed to the wall. 75% of it is on her side 25% mine. The cupboard was there before both of us bought our units and Ive been there more than 13 years. There is nothing on the plans and no by-law regarding it. 

Another neighbours pipes have leaked and destroyed the cupboard so obviously we would like to replace it. But although my insurance company will cover me, my neighbours insurance company have said no as they believe it is strata. 

Strata have said no it’s our responsibility. 

Please help. 

Avatar
JimmyT
Admin
Forum Posts: 4800
Member Since:
06/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
2
13/06/2018 - 2:47 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

butterflyness2006 said
The cupboard was there before both of us bought our units and Ive been there more than 13 years. There is nothing on the plans and no by-law regarding it. 

if it’s not on the plans and there are no by-laws about the strata scheme taking it over, then it isn’t common property.  Your neighbour should ask the insurer on what basis they have decreed that it is CP.

Avatar
scotlandx
StrataGuru
Members

Full Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
02/02/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3
13/06/2018 - 6:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

If the neighbour’s pipes leaked and destroyed the cupboard, then the neighbour is responsible. Unless of course the pipe was a common property pipe, in which case the OC is responsible.

That said – if your insurer will pay they can worry about that.  But your neigbour may wish to mention it.

Avatar
Austman
Victoria
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 332
Member Since:
22/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
4
14/06/2018 - 1:32 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

scotlandx said
If the neighbour’s pipes leaked and destroyed the cupboard, then the neighbour is responsible.

Actually they usually aren’t.

In my many dealings with these types of matters and strata insurance claims, the neighbour has to be found legally liable for the leak for any claim against them to be successful.   And that usually requires establishing negligence on their part.

With many plumbing issues, negligence is actually difficult or impossible to establish.  Pipes spontaneously leak or burst.  If someone eg damaged the pipes, they might the liable party but as we know in strata schemes, one lot’s pipes are often in another lot’s airspace (eg in garages), so it’s not always the owner of the pipes who might damage them.

But I agree, it’s best to let the insurance companies work it out.  

It seems to me this would be a building insurance claim and that would be on the OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance  (that covers fixtures, fittings and lot improvements) regardless of if they or the pipes are common property or not. 

Insurance companies tend to know what an OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance actually covers.  And in this case it seems they have concluded that the damaged cupboard is a building fixture, fitting or lot improvement covered by the OC/BC’s compulsory building insurance.

Avatar
scotlandx
StrataGuru
Members

Full Members

Moderators
Forum Posts: 832
Member Since:
02/02/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
5
16/06/2018 - 6:21 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Austman – you are in Victoria. I also own a property in Victoria, and my experience has been that the law is very different there.

The NSW legislation provides that a lot owner can be awarded damages for loss as a result of the OC’s failure to maintain the common property. You do not have to prove negligence, because the OC’s obligation is a strict liability one.

The strict duty to maintain the common property is an essential element, negligence is irrelevant.

Refer Strata Schemes Management Act section 106(5), and the decision in Shum.

Avatar
Austman
Victoria
Flat(chat)Mate
Members
Forum Posts: 332
Member Since:
22/01/2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
6
16/06/2018 - 6:56 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

scotlandx said
Austman – you are in Victoria. I also own a property in Victoria, and my experience has been that the law is very different there.

The NSW legislation provides that a lot owner can be awarded damages for loss as a result of the OC’s failure to maintain the common property. You do not have to prove negligence, because the OC’s obligation is a strict liability one.

It’s the same in Victoria – that an OC has a absolute duty to repair and maintain common property.

I think the OC would responsible for a lot’s losses if it failed to repair or maintain the common property (if the pipe was actually common property) in a timely manner.

As 106 (5) states, it’s got to be “reasonably foreseeable”.  How a pipe that can spontaneously burst or leak at any time could be considered “reasonably foreseeable” is the problem.

The case you cited was a long term (well over a year) major roof leak.  Not quite the same thing as a spontaneous burst or leaking pipe.  And it was claimed in the case that repairs were not done in a timely manner.  The delay caused the foreseeable loss.

None of my insurers around Australia consider a spontaneous burst or leaking pipe event to be a legal liability on the pipe owner.  Failing to repair it in a timely manner could be another matter.

Forum Timezone: Australia/Sydney

Most Users Ever Online: 518

Currently Online:
27 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

kiwipaul: 584

struggler: 458

Austman: 332

Millie: 206

Billen Ben: 205

Cosmo: 186

considerate band fair: 160

FlatChatFan: 140

Kangaroo: 140

daphne diaphanous: 136

Newest Members:

Ginny

hrechter

Riggy

zibmedia

Bunyip1

scammer

Amin

jonno 04

sourav

margs

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 40

Topics: 4637

Posts: 22179

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 242

Members: 5357

Moderators: 5

Admins: 1

Administrators: JimmyT

Moderators: Whale, Sir Humphrey, scotlandx, Lady Penelope, Stratabox.com.au