Qld lot owners would like to know who is responsible for the maintenance of their building, such as cleaning the roof and repairing fly screens. Frank Higginson and Chris Irons, Hynes Legal provides the following responses.
Jump directly to the QUESTION you are after:
- QUESTION: In storms, water enters our apartment via the window frames and runs down the walls. Who is responsible to fix this and stop the windows from leaking?
- 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?
- QUESTION: Who is responsible for the exterior maintenance such as cleaning of the roof? Is it the Body Corporate or the lot owner?
- 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?
GET NOTIFIED WHEN WE PUBLISH NEW Q&As, NEWS AND ARTICLES TO THE SITE
Question: In storms, water enters our apartment via the window frames and runs down the walls. Who is responsible to fix this and stop the windows from leaking?
We live on Level 5 in our building. We have basic residential sliding windows in 2 bedrooms which overlook common property air space ie. there’s no balcony.
When we have a storm which blows at 35 knots or more, rainwater fills the internal channel of the window frame and then spills over the internal window sill and onto the carpet.
Does the Body Corporate have an obligation to pay for new frames that will stop the rainwater coming in during a storm?
Answer: The body corporate is generally responsible for windows and their fittings in a boundary wall between a lot and the common property.
If you’re on level 5 then that suggests a building format plan of subdivision (you should double check that is the case against your own documents) and in that arrangement, the body corporate is generally – I stress, generally – responsible for windows and their fittings in a boundary wall between a lot and the common property. An owner under this arrangement is generally – again, I stress generally – responsible for windows leading onto a balcony that forms part of a lot, and is also generally responsible for the inside of the lot, including all fixtures and fittings inside the lot.
Determining who is responsible for maintenance is one of the most disputed about issues in a body corporate. Which means I’m not prepared to say one way or the other on your case, other than to point you to my comments above. I’d also suggest you have a look at past adjudicators’ orders to see where decisions have been made on this type of matter before. If there are decisions supporting your situation then you might like to approach the body corporate about replacing the windows and you’d probably do with a quote so that a decision can be made.
The body corporate of course may dispute your position and if between you, the matter can’t be resolved, you’d need to proceed to dispute resolution through the Commissioner’s Office.
Chris Irons
E: [email protected]
P: 07 3193 0500
W: http://www.hyneslegal.com.au
This post appears in Strata News #373.
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?
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).
Frank Higginson
E: [email protected]
P: 07 3193 0500
W: http://www.hyneslegal.com.au
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.
Frank Higginson
E: [email protected]
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.
Frank Higginson
E: [email protected]
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
Visit our Maintenance and Common Property OR FactSheets: Strata Legislation QLD
Looking for strata information concerning your state? For state-specific strata information, take a look here.
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.
In our unit block most units have balconies or patio that form part of the unit entitlement. Are the windows and doors that open onto these patios/balconies (albeit on the outside of the building) the responsibility of the owner or Body Corp to maintain and repair/replace?
If the patio / balcony is on your property it is your responsibility
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.