Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #48584
    AvatarWMB
    Flatchatter

    Recently an owner has requested quite substantial changes to common property. His tenant (actually his mother in law) is elderly  and was recently hospitalised. The ACAT team inspected her unit  before sending her home . They want a concrete path installed at the front of the building across a lawn area (as an alternative entrance to the 4 steps in the block entrance everyone uses. The unit itself is ground floor but requires 6 steps to the front door so they want a concrete path across the lawn so the tenant can use the balcony entrance. Is the body corporate required to make these changes to benefit one tenant and substantially changing the ‘look’ of the garden?

    • This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by .
    #48591
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Who or what is ACAT?

    #48601
    scotlandxscotlandx
    Strataguru

    Aged Care Assessment Team.

    No you’re not obliged to make those changes. The owners can decide not to, and then the owner has the option of applying to NCAT for an order. I think the question would then be whether the refusal is unreasonable.

    In any case, I don’t think the OC should or would be expected to pay for something like that.

     

     

    #48638
    AvatarWMB
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Thank you Scotlandx, I made managed to get onto Fair Trading and as you suggested we can say no but that could end up in the tribunal. It seems it is at their expense as is the bylaw that needs to be put in place to allow the changes to common property. Thanks fro your response.

    #48654
    Sir HumphreySir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    Could the owners corp approve a temporary modification (say a timber ramp) on the condition that it is to be installed at the unit owner’s or tenant’s expense and must be removed by the owner of the unit when the tenant is no longer resident?

    #48660
    scotlandxscotlandx
    Strataguru

    WMB bear in mind this is for the tenant of the owner, so you could argue that it is unreasonable to be asked to do that, when the tenant could move.

    Sir Humphrey also makes a good point, but put it back on the owner.

    #48663
    AvatarWMB
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Unfortunately I don’t think a ramp will work. The owner has now been told the paths are at his expense as is the by law. No response yet. The owner calls the person a tenant but she is a family member.

    #48667
    scotlandxscotlandx
    Strataguru

    Whatever, the person can still move. Anything like that would have to meet pretty stringent health and safety requirements, so it would not be cheap.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.