- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Interesting story in today’s Age newspaper:
https://theage.domain.com.au/residents-up-in-arms-over-repair-of-penthouse-domes-20121021-27zlo.html
I’d like to see the Plan of Subdivision!
-
Replies
-
On the face of it, it would seem very strange if the roof (which doesn’t look accessible) were part of the top floor’s lot, and not the common property of the building. Even in the internal area of the domes are part of the top floor lots, it’s no different to the internal area of a room under the roof of any top floor apartment.
We had a similar thing in our body corporate – some owners queried fixing a roof leak into a top floor owner’s lot – seemingly not realising the same roof sheltered their own lots!
It’s even stranger given there had clearly been a sinking fund for the issue, and that VCAT still sent to mediation rather than just issuing a determination. Could make interesting reading if the case notes are made public, perhaps there’s some nuance present that isn’t public yet.
If I were being asked to cough up 100k, I’d just put the furniture in that room into storage, let the water through, and see how long the owner underneath lasted before agreeing the roof is common property!
I agree with Apartmentalize. That is exactly what I would do to, move out and let the water leak down into apartment below. I have lived on the top floor of an apartment complex (though it was no penthouse) and just as the roof space above me was not mine, neither was the roof that sheltered all of the units in the complex not just those on the top floor. I would have thought that was the case most of the time unless the roof was on title or in a special by law. If a roof leaks it could affect the structure of the building.
And they tell me they don’t need Flat Chat in Victoria …
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
If the OC approved the works to the domes three years ago and proceeded, it is difficult to see how they can now say it is the responsibility of those owners, and they have to pay for works that the OC did. Because if it were, it would have been up to those owners.
Hope that makes sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.