This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Jimmy-T 2 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #36121
    Avatar
    DeadWreckOn
    Flatchatter

    I am seeking to ascertain whether concrete stencilling laid over the top of the concrete slab on my unit terrace is deemed to be common property. It was originally laid by the developer of the units prior to the sale of any of the units.

    The strata plan defines the stratum of this terrace as “The stratum of each terrace extends from the upper surface of the concrete slab forming the floor of each terrace to a height 3 metres above that surface, excluding any common property.”

    There is considerable debate amongst our executive committee and it would be wonderful if you could shed some light on this problem for us.

    #36125
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Tiles attached to the terrace would be common property so stencilling almost certainly is too.

    #36126
    Lady Penelope
    Lady Penelope
    Strataguru

    I agree with JT.

    Also, if the terrace/balcony is located on a suspended slab be very mindful of any additional weight that may be added if new concrete and/or tiles are being laid over old concrete. You may need to request advice from a structural engineer.

    #36176
    Avatar
    DeadWreckOn
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Hi Jimmy-T, Thanks for your prompt response. May I clarify a similar issue.

    Some of the other balconies in our units are totally covered by the balcony above. They all have tiles on them that also were laid by the developer at the time the units were built. Their stratum definition is slightly different – “The stratum of each balcony extends from the upper surface of the concrete slab forming the floor of each balcony to the underside of the concrete slab immediately above that surface”

    It does not contain the phrase “excluding any common property”.

    Does that mean that the tiles are part of the stratum even though they are considered common property? Or are they still common property and the responsibility of the Owners Corporation?

    Some of the unit owners have already effected repairs to these tiled surfaces at their own expense. Does that have any significance when further maintenance is required?

    #36279
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    I am guessing here but I think this may be a misuse or very specific interpretation of the word “stratum” (which has several meanings in property law).

    But putting this in the context of standard practice in strata law, it reads to me that it is defining the area of the balcony that is common property connected to this particular lot – from the surface of the slab to the bottom of the slab above. The fact that both slabs are also common property is neither here nor there.

    Regarding the change of tiles, if they did so with permission (but without taking on responsibility for the tiles or the seal underneath) then the tiles continue to be the responsibility of the owners corp.

    If they changed the tiles without permission then any claim they might make to repair or replace them in the future could be countered with a claim for restoring the original tiles.

     

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Jimmy-T.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login Register