This topic contains 6 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Jimmy-T 3 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39544
    Avatar
    Kenuppa
    Flatchatter

     

    I am in Queensland

    I have to create a new By-Law to define cost split between owner and Body Corp. Tiles are property of the owner. Waterproof membrane is property of the Body Corporate.

    Existing adjudications define responsibilities for maintenance and repair of each, however to clarify the cost share I would like a concise By-Law.

    Is there a suitable By-Law in existence?

    My initial proposal is:

    When an owner chooses to retile their balcony or courtyard including replacement of the waterproof membrane, the Body Corporate will pay the portion of cost applicable to the replacement of the waterproof membrane.

    Any suggestions?
     

     

     

     

    • This topic was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Jimmy-T.
    #39575
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Why would the body corporate pay for the replacement of the membrane when it wouldn’t need replacing if the tiles weren’t being changed?

    So perhaps your by-law could read:

    When an owner chooses to retile their balcony or courtyard, including replacement of the waterproof membrane, the Body Corporate will only pay the portion of cost applicable to the replacement of the waterproof membrane if the membrane is already damaged by normal wear and tear or some other prior unrelated event for which the Body Corporate would normally be liable.

    I suggest you contact the Unit Owners Association of Queensland to see if they have any off-the-peg by-laws.

    #39590
    Avatar
    Kenuppa
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    If a ByLaw can suitably regulate and apportion cost of the re tiling and waterproofing, when it is done by owners choice, perhaps done to match work done by and fully paid for by the Body Corporate then the outcome of shared cost will be a win-win result.  Owner get their new tiles, Body Corp get new waterproof membrane.  Cost is suitably shared.
    I was hoping that there might be an existing example from one of the States that create bylaws for every little thing. I will follow up with UOAQ.

    When creating a new ByLaw should legal advice be sought to check the wording for errors or ambiguous interpretation?

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by Jimmy-T.
    #39606
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    It’s not a “win-win” if the Body Corporate doesn’t particularly want or need a new membrane – it’s free ride for the renovator.

    And yes, you would be well advised to seek legal advice if you are writing your own by-laws from scratch

    #39694
    Avatar
    kaindub
    Flatchatter

    Just thinking outside the square here.

    It is likely you want to change the tiles for cosmetic reasons rather than that they have failed. ( Ifntheybhave failed it is an OC responsibility and no bylaw is required)

    If the change is for cosmetic purposes, just place (and glue) your new tiles over the existing ones. Sure, there will be a change in height, but often that will not be noticeable. And no bylaw is required (in my opinion) as you are not damaging or changing the common property.

    Your lot starts from the upper surface of the tiles.

    Robert

    #39779
    Avatar
    Kenuppa
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    My intention was to create a By-Law to regulate the cost sharing between owner and Body Corporate, when cost sharing was appropriate.

    Tiles are the property and responsibility of the unit owner. Waterproof membrane is the property and responsibility of the Body Corporate.

    If the waterproof membrane fails, the full cost of tile removal, membrane replacement and new tile placement must be the responsibility of the Body Corporate.

    If the tiles need replacing but the waterproof membrane is still ok, the cost of tile removal and replacement is the responsibility of the unit owner.

    However the process of doing this would most likely damage the waterproof membrane and therefore I thought it would be good practice to have a By-Law which defined how cost could be shared between owner and the Body Corporate.

    Simply overlaying existing tiles with new tiles is not a good solution.  In our building the balustrades are exactly 1 metre high.  Overlaying tiles would reduce this height to less than the minimum legal height required.

    The win-win outcome would exist because each party would gain new property for potentially half the cost each.

    However, I have decided not to proceed with development of a new By-Law following advice from our Body Corporate Manager that a By-Law is not suitable for something such as this and is not required, and that it is a Committee decision to reimburse an owner or to arrange waterproof membrane repair.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by Jimmy-T.
    #39800
    Jimmy-T
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Kenuppa said:

    My intention was to create a By-Law to regulate the cost sharing between owner and Body Corporate, when cost sharing was appropriate.

    That’s not what you said in your initial post. It’s not a “win-win” when one party has no need to fix anything in the first place.

    In fact, if the membrane was already in need of repair, and the the tiles would need to be lifted to do so, then the entire cost – membrane and tile replacement – would fall to the owners corp.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by Jimmy-T.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

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