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.
Good Morning all, please help, NSW self managed town houses, an extension was done a few years ago to a unit, and by law signed off that they are responsible for repairs and maintenance of the extension. We are now in the process of painting the entire complex and the unit that has the extension insists that the painting of their extension should be included in the scope to paint the entire property and this is the trade off seeing if they had no extension we would have to paint their external walls which is now their internal walls. Who should pay for the painting of their extension, and is there such a thing as a “trade off”. thank you..
In my opinion the OC should not pay to paint the extension. The by-law contained a maintenance provision and therefore the OC is not responsible for the painting of the extension.
I am assuming that the owner paid for the initial painting of the exterior of his extension without requesting that the OC pay for it. If the extension is only relatively new then it will probably not require a repaint at this time, therefore the owner should not have to pay any additional painting costs at this time.
Perhaps this can be the “trade off” in this instance?
When it comes time to paint the building both now and into the future your OC should just paint all of the other walls of the building and leave the extension untouched.
If the owner doesn’t believe that this is a ‘reasonable’ action then they have the option to lodge a dispute
I agree with Lady P’s comments. But I think this only becomes significant if the paint needs renewal or there would be an obvious difference in colour between the main building and the extension.
The real “trade-off” would be doing the sensible thing rather that than following the strict letter of the law, in order to keep the look of the building the same while avoiding unnecessary legal costs and community strife.
IMHO, the sensible thing would be to allow the extension owner to take advantage of the reduced cost of the paint job (as part of a larger project) and make a contribution accordingly.
The hard line would be to order them to make the extension look the same as the rest of the building at their expense.
If the extension would mean significantly more paint was required, I’d be strongly suggesting the put a few dollars in the pot. If not, just ask for a letter confirming that repair and maintenance of the exterior of the extension is their responsibility, then get on with it.
By the way, can we assume that the lot owners unit entitlements were increased as a result of the extension? Just asking.
Hi JimmyT, No obvious difference between paint colours, just a few shades different, however if strata pays for painting, then what happens if they ask for their plumbing or roofing to be fixed, as we have set a precedent, just saying. Also unit entitlements were not increased as they are responsible for the extension as per the strata by law. They do not want to contribute, as they think that if there was no extension, strata would be paying for the painting for their exterior painting anyway.
I would not agree to paint the extension.
There are several reasons for my decision:
(1) The by-law removes from the OC the responsibility for all maintenance of the extension, including the exterior painting.
(2) Nothing in the by-law states that the OC is responsible for making any contributions to the maintenance of the extension. If the owner had wanted financial assistance from the OC then this should have been written into the by-law.
(3) The existing paint on the exterior should be in OK condition given that it was only painted 5 years ago. The owner of the extension should not be compelled by the OC to repaint at this stage.
(4) The repaint of the other parts of the building is not a significant colour change from the existing colour scheme on the extension so the extension paint colour should be allowed to remain as is.
(5) The owner of the extension should only be compelled by the OC to repaint the extension when painting is required as a condition on their maintenance obligations. Depending on the quality of the paint used this may not need to occur for another 10 years.
(6) When painting of the extension is required to be undertaken the owner of the extension should be made aware of the “Appearance” by-law (if you have it). At that time the owner should paint the extension the same colours as the common property in compliance with this by-law. The name of the paint colours should be made available to the owner of the extension to enable them to purchase the exact paint colour as that used on the common property exterior.
(7) If the owner of the extension does not believe that the OC decision is ‘reasonable’ then they have an option to dispute it.
Most Users Ever Online: 518
Currently Online: Imogen Bannister, Ethicsfirst, JimmyT
Currently Browsing this Page:
Billen Ben: 205
considerate band fair: 160
Guest Posters: 243
Moderators: Sir Humphrey, scotlandx, Christopher Jones, Lady Penelope, Stratabox.com.au, Jimmy-T