Hi all.
I am the owner of a flat, on the upper level of a double storey building. Under the concrete slab (upon which my flat 'sits') are 4 carpark spaces, ie there is no downstairs flat. I mentioned some cracks in my internal walls to the OC, and they commissioned Engineer1, who said that the "structure is in danger of collapse", and that “the suspended concrete slab must be propped up as soon as possible”. The OC installed (hired) support props. A second opinion ('Engineer2') disagreed that the structure is in danger of collapse, but refused to condone the removal of the props (something the OCs insurer insisted upon), and suggested support beams for $40K+.
Meanwhile, (this is the plot twist) .. the OC's lawyer says that the slab actually falls within the boundary of private lots(!), and "given that no common property is involved in the concrete area, the Owners Corporation is not responsible for the costs of rectifying either the suspended slab deflection or the internal cracking within [my lot]. At present, on the investigations done to date, only lots [my lot and the 4 car space lots below] are liable to pay for the rectification works required to be undertaken and detailed in the (Engineer's) Report."
So also say I must pay for the cost of the hired props (from date the area was deemed 'private property' ). While I agree that the proposed works would increase safety, I question whether the works are necessary, as a third engineer also disagreed with Engineer1's opinion that “the structure is in danger of collapse”
Q1: Isn't the OC usually responsible for maintaining essential structural elements of the building (like foundation structures, roofing structures that provide protection and load-bearing walls) - ie even if they are not on common property?
Q2: The slab shares boundaries with five separate lots. It services the rest of the building, because it carries the weight of the (common property) roof, and sits on the (common property) walls. Aren’t elements which 'service' more than one lot normally dealt with as ‘infrastructure', ie common property’?
Q3: If I may quote Section 48 of the Owners Corporation Act (Vic) 2006:
I ask the OC, but it is not explained how the condition of the slab affects A: “The outward appearance or state of repair of the lot” (ie there is nothing to 'see'), or the "use or enjoyment of other lots". The hired support props do take up someone's car spot, but they were installed by the OC itself. They are not my property, and are not located on my property (they are wholly within one of the car parks below). Does Sec 48 even apply here?
Q4: Do the works proposed by Engineer2 constitute 'repair' as per Sec 48? They involve support beams, being placed against (an external part of) the building. The internal cracking within my flat will not be 'rectified', and the slab itself will remain in its 100% original condition. Are they a 'repair', or an 'improvement' (they involve building permits etc as per capital works).
Q5: If the structure is NOT in danger of collapse ( the basis upon which the props were put in) it didn't need the support props.. so... who should pay for the (hired) support props?
Since two engineers disagreed with the initial engineer’s dire safety assessment, the main impetus to do works is to get rid of the (hired) props, placed there by the OC. I called the prop hire company to tell them to remove the props (because they are on private property), but they said their contract is with the OC Manager. The OC Manager said she could not remove the props, because she had to fulfill the requirements of the OCs Insurer. I'm confused, because if were talking about 'private property', why is the OCs insurer involved? The main impetus to do works is to remove the hired props, and comply with insurance requirements, so is there a case to be made that everyone should contribute?
I am the owner of a flat, on the upper level of a double storey building. Under the concrete slab (upon which my flat 'sits') are 4 carpark spaces, ie there is no downstairs flat. I mentioned some cracks in my internal walls to the OC, and they commissioned Engineer1, who said that the "structure is in danger of collapse", and that “the suspended concrete slab must be propped up as soon as possible”. The OC installed (hired) support props. A second opinion ('Engineer2') disagreed that the structure is in danger of collapse, but refused to condone the removal of the props (something the OCs insurer insisted upon), and suggested support beams for $40K+.
Meanwhile, (this is the plot twist) .. the OC's lawyer says that the slab actually falls within the boundary of private lots(!), and "given that no common property is involved in the concrete area, the Owners Corporation is not responsible for the costs of rectifying either the suspended slab deflection or the internal cracking within [my lot]. At present, on the investigations done to date, only lots [my lot and the 4 car space lots below] are liable to pay for the rectification works required to be undertaken and detailed in the (Engineer's) Report."
So also say I must pay for the cost of the hired props (from date the area was deemed 'private property' ). While I agree that the proposed works would increase safety, I question whether the works are necessary, as a third engineer also disagreed with Engineer1's opinion that “the structure is in danger of collapse”
Q1: Isn't the OC usually responsible for maintaining essential structural elements of the building (like foundation structures, roofing structures that provide protection and load-bearing walls) - ie even if they are not on common property?
Q2: The slab shares boundaries with five separate lots. It services the rest of the building, because it carries the weight of the (common property) roof, and sits on the (common property) walls. Aren’t elements which 'service' more than one lot normally dealt with as ‘infrastructure', ie common property’?
Q3: If I may quote Section 48 of the Owners Corporation Act (Vic) 2006:
Lots not properly maintained
(1) If a lot owner has refused or failed to carry out repairs, maintenance or other works to the lot owner's lot that are required because—
(a) the outward appearance or outward state of repair of the lot is adversely affected; or
(b) the use and enjoyment of the lots or common property by other lot owners is adversely affected—
the owners corporation may serve a notice on the lot owner requiring the lot owner to carry out the necessary repairs, maintenance or other works.
I ask the OC, but it is not explained how the condition of the slab affects A: “The outward appearance or state of repair of the lot” (ie there is nothing to 'see'), or the "use or enjoyment of other lots". The hired support props do take up someone's car spot, but they were installed by the OC itself. They are not my property, and are not located on my property (they are wholly within one of the car parks below). Does Sec 48 even apply here?
Q4: Do the works proposed by Engineer2 constitute 'repair' as per Sec 48? They involve support beams, being placed against (an external part of) the building. The internal cracking within my flat will not be 'rectified', and the slab itself will remain in its 100% original condition. Are they a 'repair', or an 'improvement' (they involve building permits etc as per capital works).
Q5: If the structure is NOT in danger of collapse ( the basis upon which the props were put in) it didn't need the support props.. so... who should pay for the (hired) support props?
Since two engineers disagreed with the initial engineer’s dire safety assessment, the main impetus to do works is to get rid of the (hired) props, placed there by the OC. I called the prop hire company to tell them to remove the props (because they are on private property), but they said their contract is with the OC Manager. The OC Manager said she could not remove the props, because she had to fulfill the requirements of the OCs Insurer. I'm confused, because if were talking about 'private property', why is the OCs insurer involved? The main impetus to do works is to remove the hired props, and comply with insurance requirements, so is there a case to be made that everyone should contribute?