Qld lot owners would like to know who is responsible for the exterior maintenance of their building, such as cleaning the roof and repairing fly screens. Todd Garsden, Hynes Legal provides the following responses.
Question: Our Exterior doors contain asbestos and are being replaced. We’ve been told we need to pay for the replacement of deadlocks and peepholes. Does this sound right?
GET THE LATEST STRATA NEWS / ARTICLES DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX HERE
Our exterior doors are being replaced as they contain asbestos. Most, if not all, unit doors have deadlocks and peepholes which will have to be replaced as, we’re told, they may not be removed to re-use.
We have been told by the committee that owners need to pay for the replacement of the deadlocks and peepholes. There are some people who question this and believe that the replacement costs of these items are the Body Corporate responsibility. Can you help with a correct procedure?
Answer: The doors should be replaced like for like.
It depends on how the new door was approved but if it were approved as maintenance (as it sounds to be the case) then generally they should be replaced like for like – which would include the deadlock and peephole (assuming there are no fire safety restrictions surrounding that).
This post appears in Strata News #301.
Question: Who is responsible for the exterior maintenance such as cleaning of the roof? Is it the Body Corporate or the lot owner?
The roofs on all Townhouses and villas in our complex are colourbond. They all need cleaning.
Is exterior cleaning owner’s or the body corporate’s responsibility? Some roofs are badly stained due to overhanging trees on community property that the body corporate has refused to have trimmed. Additionally, the concrete fire barriers between dwellings that extend above roof height also need cleaning.
Who is responsible for the exterior cleaning of the building?
Answer: This will depend on whether the lots are created in a building format plan (BFP) or standard format plan (SFP) – which the survey plan will show.
This will depend on whether the lots are created in a building format plan (BFP) or standard format plan (SFP) – which the survey plan will show. The body corporate manager should be able to confirm this.
If it is building format plan (BFP) – it will be the body corporate’s responsibility, and if it is a standard format plan (SFP) it will be the owner’s responsibility.
The threshold question though is whether the cleaning is required to ensure that they are in good condition. If they are in good condition notwithstanding they are not clean, there is no obligation to clean them.
This post appears in Strata News #234.
Question: We were recently hit by a hail storm which caused damage to our apartment. Who would be responsible for exterior maintenance such as replacing and repairing our damaged fly screens?
Recently in Queensland, we were hit with a hail storm which damaged our fly screens on the southern side of our unit. As the window are the responsibility of the body corporate, wouldn’t fly screens be considered exterior maintenance and treated the same?
Who would be responsible for replacing and repairing our damaged fly screens?
Answer: If the fly screens were fitted on all windows from the outset, then the cost of maintaining them, or replacing them if necessary, should be borne by the body corporate.
The body corporate in a building format plan is responsible for windows and associated fittings situated in a boundary wall. That would include fly screens (as an associated fitting).
If the fly screens were fitted on all windows from the outset, then the cost of maintaining them, or replacing them if necessary, should be borne by the body corporate. However, if the screens were installed by the owner, that is an improvement that they would be responsible for.
This post appears in Strata News #231.
Have a question about exterior maintenance of the building in QLD or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read Next:
- QLD: Q&A Who is Responsible for Maintaining Common Property – Exclusive Use Areas?
- QLD: Q&A Body Corporate Spending Without Required Approvals
- QLD: Maintenance responsibilities by format plan
Todd Garsden
E: [email protected]
P: 07 3193 0500
W: http://www.hyneslegal.com.au
Visit our Maintenance and Common Property OR FactSheets: Strata Legislation QLD
After a free PDF of this article? Log into your existing LookUpStrata Account to download the printable file. Not a member? Simple – join for free on our Registration page.
I have been involved with a similar scenario, but with a twist. The front doors/firedoors leading from the common property into the individual units – and thereby the responsibility of the body corporate (BC)- were filled with asbestos. Professional advice was received that as long as the asbestos was undisturbed, there was no inherent need to replace the doors simply because of the presence of the asbestos. Over the years a number of unit owners had installed peepholes and/or deadlocks without BC permission. The professional advisor advised that this had disturbed the asbestos, and these doors needed to be replaced. The committee followed this advice, and pursued the owners for the replacement cost.
I’m not too sure what the law is, but this seems a reasonable approach to me. You break it….you fix it.