- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by .
Hi AllI’d be grateful for any advice please.
I am thinking about buying a 2bdrm unit for $660k in an upmarket complex in Sydney as an investment property with my Mum as the first tenant. It is unit in a 105 apartment complex. The site was originally a ceramics factory with steel frame but converted to an apartment complex, (retaining much of the original steel frame), in 2004
The problem is that the strata report i requested identified the issues below (please see extracts from reports below).
1. Would any of you still proceed with buying this property?2. Can you share any experiences of similar strata issues and how they have impacted upon you or the property price?I am not sure how serious these identified issues are but people on a property investment forum have said i am crazy to even consider buying this property – but i love the property itself as it suits my needs perfectly (ideal apartment from my mum and only 5 minutes walk from my house so i can help with emergencies and she can see the grandkids)?3. I've heard that strata complexes with large repair issues can avoid large special leviesave told me that when older people in levies for big repair bills by simply getting a strata finance loan (SFL) (upto $25kper unit) to fund the repairs which only modestly increases levies and pushes cost onto the nextd the costs onto the next owners rather than current owner but have the downside of driving the property price down (by the value of the SFL per unit) until the SFL is repaid (although if i buy i would not be looking to sell in the short/medium term so this does not seem a big downside for me)
– does anyone have any experiences with SFL's and info about how common these are and how applicable to this situation?4. Do you have any other advice?
Thanks for any help in advance!
Excerpt from Strata report:
In July 2011 report from consulting engineers, identified building defects in common property and various units. As the building was still under warranty at this time (the period is now expired), the defects were the builder’s responsibility to rectify under the warranty provisions of the Home Building Act, and a copy of the report was forwarded to them.
The owners are currently making a claim for defect rectification against the builder (their second such claim) and have engaged Lawyers to act for them in relation to a Construction Defect Claim.
The strata manager advised that no estimates have as yet been obtained for the rectification work, however he expects costs to be in excess of $1 million.
This claim is still in its early stages and as the outcome is unknown, any eventual costs to owners are also unknown. If the owners are unsuccessful in the claim, a Special Levy may be required if they are obliged to fund the necessary work themselves.
However, the deficiencies raised as a result of inspections by Fire Consultants, Paint and Coatings Consultants, and Acoustic Consultants cause much greater concern. If the defects these Consultants have detected in a small sample of units are replicated throughout the complex, the cost of rectification may well escalate to millions of dollars.
Excerpt from engineers report:
We understand that extensive corrosion to new and existing steel beams throughout the complex has been the subject of numerous past reports.
Over large sections of existing steel or where new and old steel have been welded together, the incidence of corrosion appears to have manifested much earlier than one would expect using a Micaceous Iron Oxide system that should have received correct surface preparation and application.
We note that Dr X (edited name) has been engaged to provide a detailed report on the issues of coatings failures to the structural steel at the subject building and when his Expert Report is complete it will attached in Appendix B.
Building Code Solutions Report of Inspections of Units dated February 2011
A number of items of concern are noted in the report relating to possible non-compliance with fire separation of bounding walls between units and unprotected steel beams and roof purlins passing through these same bounding walls.
Building Code Solutions Report of Inspections of Units dated June 2011
All 3 units had the ceiling void above their bathroom inspected by viewing through a ceiling hatch. All 3 bathrooms displayed ventilation ducts penetrating bounding walls without fire dampers installed. This is a possible compromise of the fire rating of the bounding wall.
EMGA Acoustic Report dated 17 June 2011
A sample of 6 units was tested for sound transmission and most failed the less stringent BCA 1996 requirements while all units tested failed the 2004 BCA requirements.
The possible breaches and failures noted in the reports have the potential to escalate to a very significant claim if the same pattern of deficiency is proven to be replicated throughout the entire complex.
We recommend that the Owners Corporation seek legal advice to determine if the sample of units which appear to show anomalies in their Fire Protection and Acoustic Rating is sufficient in number to substantiate a claim or if a broader sample of units should be inspected and tested to arrive at a definitive conclusion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.