The information in this article will assist when reading strata plans. It discusses who’s responsible, and provides a guide to common property boundaries when it comes to VIC apartment repairs and common property defects.
Table of Contents:
- QUESTION: Are external windows, including hardware, common property? I am struggling to find specific inclusions in my strata plan.
- QUESTION: Our building has gas for hot water and cooktops. We are under an embedded network. An owner wants to install an induction cooktop. Do they need OC approval? What about the 10 year contract with the energy provider?
- QUESTION: Fire Rescue Victoria damaged the door to our vacant apartment when they responded to a nuisance fire call. Who is responsible for the cost of replacing the door?
- QUESTION: Each townhouse has a gutter and downpipe that appears to be part of their lot. Should the gutters and downpipes be repaired by the owners corporation?
- QUESTION: If I misplace or damage my letterbox key, who is responsible to replace the key?
- QUESTION: Possibly due to temperate changes, a larger crack has formed in the sliding door to my balcony. Who is responsible for the repair?
- QUESTION: The ground floor units in our building have a lease to a front courtyard. All courtyards are enclosed by a front fence that connects to the footpath. One courtyard also contain a tree. Who is responsible for the cost of repair of the fence? Who maintains and prunes the tree? What do we do if the details of the lease are lost?
- QUESTION: A Strata Manager has taken over management from a self managed strata. What are the implications when funds have been used incorrectly due to the committee reading the plan of subdivision wrong?
- QUESTION: In the common area, is the owners corporation responsible for the sewer line wholly or partially? If partially, how do we clarify this?
- QUESTION: Irregular gutter cleaning has resulted in roof leaks and damage to my walls and ceiling. Who is responsible to carry out regular maintenance such as gutter cleaning?
- QUESTION: My intercom is broken but I’m not sure if the fault is with my handset or the entire unit. Who pays and how do I get this fixed?
Question: Are external windows, including hardware, common property? I am struggling to find specific inclusions in my strata plan.
The hardware on the external windows of my apartment is starting to fail. Are external windows, including hardware, common property? I am struggling to find specific inclusions in my strata plan. Our strata manager defaults to “not common property,” and it’s up to owners to prove it is.
Answer: It would appear reasonable for owners to maintain their window hardware.
You are likely privately responsible for maintenance of the hardware.
Window hardware won’t be specifically referenced in your plan of subdivision. If the boundary of the wall where the window lies is either ‘exterior face’ or ‘median line’, the hardware is yours to repair. If the wall boundary is ‘interior face’, there may be an argument that the OC is responsible for the hardware.
You should check the OC’s Rules to see whether there are any references to window hardware.
Putting aside boundaries and technicalities, from a practical perspective it would appear reasonable for each owner to maintain their window hardware. There are a number of reasons for this:
- The OC has no control over how unit occupants operate the hardware. How would you feel about contributing to the repair of someone else’s hardware the occupant had misused?
- From a routine maintenance perspective, it is not practical for the OC to have to organise entry to every unit periodically to perform such maintenance.
- Other owners do not derive a benefit from the hardware in your unit.
So, in short, I suggest arranging repair of your window hardware privately.
Callum Wilson
The Strata Shepherd
E: [email protected]
P: 0431 925 908
This post appears in the November 2024 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: Our building has gas for hot water and cooktops. We are under an embedded network. An owner wants to install an induction cooktop. Do they need OC approval? What about the 10 year contract with the energy provider?
I am the chairman of the owners corporation for an apartment building in Victoria. The building was completed in 2018, and there are 20 apartments. There is an embedded gas network system for the hot water service and gas cooktops. The developer entered into a 10 year contract with an energy provider. The OC has received an enquiry from an owner wanting to know if she can change the gas cooktop in her apartment to an induction cooktop.
Due to media around the switch from gas to electricity for new builds in Victoria, I expect we will receive more enquiries from owners. Can an owner make this change without seeking approval, or is OC approval required? The developer initially installed gas because there is concern the electricity substation to the building cannot support the additional electricity required for induction cooktops.
Answer: The OC should review the agreement/s and define who is responsible for what. Go through the Single Line Diagrams.
In Victoria, the rules and regulations governing modifications to individual apartments within a strata or owners corporation complex can vary. Typically, modifications that involve alterations to the common property, shared infrastructure, or utilities may require approval from the owners corporation (OC).
I suggest the OC review the agreement/s and define who is responsible for what. Go through the Single Line Diagrams (SLDs). There are several other things to consider, including OC by-laws, the type of cooktop to be installed, the works involved, the developer agreement with the energy provider, the building’s substation capacity and safety and compliance. The agreements will define if any approval is required from the provider regarding changes to the networks, and the SLD should define what specifications each apartment has connected to their switchboard in the apartment. The SLD may also provide some insight into the building’s electricity substation. A third party can review both of these.
If a customer disconnects their gas supply, it will likely need to be physically capped within the apartment or the common property (which may require some approval); however, a gas cooktop charge certainly wouldn’t be logical.
Concerns about the electricity substation’s capacity can be addressed by consulting a licensed electrician to determine the building’s spare capacity and informing owners of the safe number and power ratings of electric cooktops they can adopt.
Sarah Shevy
Energy On
E: [email protected]
P: 1300 323 263
This post appears in the October 2023 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: Fire Rescue Victoria damaged the door to our vacant apartment when they responded to a nuisance fire call. Who is responsible for the cost of replacing the door?
Our apartment door was damaged when Fire Rescue Victoria responded to a call from an unknown person reporting suspicion of a fire in our unit. The apartment was not tenanted at the time. There was no fire.
Who should pay the $2000 bill to replace the door? Neither the lot owner, resident, nor owners corporation had any involvement in the incident. Who is responsible for the replacement of the door?
Answer: If it is common property, the owners corporation might pass on the cost to the lot owner under the benefit principle.
The first step is to work out whether the door is common property or private lot property, as that will determine whose responsibility the repair and maintenance/replacement is. Then the next step is to see whether the event is covered by insurance and whether an insurance claim should be made. If it is common property, the owners corporation might pass on the cost to the lot owner under the benefit principle.
Phillip Leaman
Tisher Liner FC Law
E: [email protected]
P: 03 8600 9370
This post appears in the August 2023 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: Each townhouse has a gutter and downpipe that appears to be part of their lot. Should the gutters and downpipes be repaired by the owners corporation?
We would like the gutters and downpipes on the townhouses in our blocks to be repaired by the owners corporation.
Each townhouse has its own independent gutter and downpipe that appears to be part of their lot. Do Sections 47 and 47A of the Owners Corporation Act 2006 apply here, allowing the owners corporation to repair the gutters and down pipes? If not, how might we go about having them maintained by the owners corporation?
Answer: For practical reasons, it may be preferrable for the repairs/replacement of the gutters to be arranged by the owners corporation.
Given you have advised that the entire structure is private property, 47(1) of the Act is unlikely to be applicable as this references a service for the benefit of more than one lot and the common property and / or if it is impracticable for the lot owner to carry out the repair or maintenance. Based on your description of the boundary points, the gutters are likely to be private property (under Section 131 of the Act), and as such, individual owners may carry out repairs to their section of the gutter if they wish to.
For practical reasons, it may however, be preferred that the owners corporation arrange for the repairs/replacement of the length of gutters, subject to a special resolution being passed allowing it to provide a service to lot owners under section 12 of the Act. If this is preferred, subject to a special resolution passed permitting the service, this can be done under Section 47(2) at the request and the expense of the lot owners who own the gutters. Discussion should take place at a general meeting to authorise the owners corporation to carry out private property repair and maintenance.
Dilshan Meemanage
MBCM Strata Specialists
E: [email protected]
P: 03 9046 2231
This post appears in the April 2023 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: If I misplace or damage my letterbox key, who is responsible to replace the key?
Answer: The occupier of the lot is responsible for the costs of replacing the key.
The occupier of the lot is responsible for the costs of replacing the key. The key (and the letterbox space) is used by that lot only, so it is not considered a common repair and maintenance responsibility.
Some owners corporations have a registered letterbox key system and thus the Manager may need to be contacted to arrange a new key (at the occupier’s cost). In all other situations, it is recommended that a locksmith is engaged privately to cut a new key(s).
Callum Wilson
Bright & Duggan
E: [email protected]
P: 0427 339 980
This post appears in the February 2023 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: Possibly due to temperate changes, a larger crack has formed in the sliding door to my balcony. Who is responsible for the repair?
I am the owner of a floor level apartment. I have noticed a crack in the glass of my external sliding door to the balcony. This appears to be due to temperature changes.
Who is responsible for the repair of the glass. Is it the Owners Corporation or the lot owner?
Answer: Seeing the repair works will only benefit the one lot and the damage is located within private property, the responsibility for the repair rests with the lot owner.
This question is usually asked when determining who is responsible for any repair/s or maintenance to a specific area within a complex.
Who “owns” the damage needing attention? Even though it may not be anyone’s fault specifically (as in this case), the responsibility will still need to fall on either a specific lot owner or the owners corporation.
In this case, seeing the repair works will only benefit the one lot, along with the added fact that the damage is located within private property (balcony), on this occasion the responsibility for the necessary repairs/replacement would rest with the lot owner and not the owners corporation.
Guy Garreffa
StrataPoint
E: [email protected]
P: (03) 8726 9962
This post appears in the November 2022 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: The ground floor units in our building have a lease to a front courtyard. All courtyards are enclosed by a front fence that connects to the footpath. One courtyard also contain a tree. Who is responsible for the cost of repair of the fence? Who maintains and prunes the tree? What do we do if the details of the lease are lost?
Answer: The lease should stipulate conditions as to which party is responsible for the upkeep of the fence and the tree.
A lease grants exclusive rights to a Lessee for a specific area granted under the lease. The lease should stipulate conditions as to which party is responsible for the upkeep of the fence and the tree.
There may be a specific condition that requires the Lessee to maintain the courtyard, including fences and the tree. If the area being leased (courtyard) is Common Property, then it would be prudent to check the lease for these conditions. The cost of the maintenance may also depend on the boundary.
Even if the lease is lost, the conditions still apply. If you are unsure where to find your lease, the below information might point you in the right direction:
- Contact the Lessor in the first instance: it should be on the records for the Owners Corporation
- If the lease is for common property, it is likely the Owners Corporation’s solicitor would have prepared it
- The lease would need to be stipulated on an Owners Corporation Certificate. If there has been a recent sale of the lot in question, there would also need to be a transfer deed/deed of amendment between the parties
- It is possible that the lease is registered on title. The Lessee could apply to Land Victoria for a copy of the lease.
- If both parties have lost the lease and no record can be found, the Lessor may request that a new lease be signed and have this prepared as a priority
If you are unsure as to the responsibilities set out in the terms of your lease, we recommend seeking independent legal advice.
If the Owners Corporation is responsible for maintenance, then the lessee could not prevent access to the courtyard and must allow the Owners Corporation to carry out its duties under the Act with appropriate notice provided as per other applicable legislation.
In respect to the pruning of the trees, we recommend contacting your Owners Corporation Manager advising of the health and safety issue. They will be able to either arrange trades to attend and/or advise you of the responsible party for the maintenance (including the costs involved).
Sim Firns
The Knight
Email
P: 03 9509 3144
This post appears in the September 2022 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: A Strata Manager has taken over management from a self managed strata. What are the implications when funds have been used incorrectly due to the committee reading the plan of subdivision wrong?
Answer: If you’re not fully up to speed with who is meant to be responsible for what, you can have a situation where the owners corporation has spent money where they shouldn’t have.
The plan of subdivision is really important because it determines where maintenance responsibilities lie within the strata scheme. It can very well be the case that, if you’re not fully up to speed with who is meant to be responsible for what, you can have a situation where the owners corporation has spent money where they shouldn’t have. This then leaves open the possibilities of recovery, but more than that, I think it leaves open the prospect of a rude shock for people when things start getting done the right way. Suddenly it’s ‘whoa, where did this bill come from?’. Because something was done one way in the past does not necessarily mean it continues to be that way in the future, particularly if it was wrong in the first place.
Chris Irons
Strata Solve
E: [email protected]
P: 0419 805 898
This post appears in the September 2022 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Question: In the common area, is the owners corporation responsible for the sewer line wholly or partially? If partially, how do we clarify this?
Answer: When it comes to sewer pipes, it depends on where they are located and what they service.
Pursuant to Part 2 Division 1 Section 4 of the Owners Corporation Act 2006, the Owners Corporation is responsible for maintenance of common property. The plan of subdivision determines what is common property. When it comes to sewer pipes, it depends on where they are located and what they service.
Without further information, it is impossible to make a determination of whether the pipe is an owners corporation responsibility. It should be noted that a reputable registered plumber would be able to assist and advise.
Stratabase Holdings
E: [email protected]
P: 0412 247 589
This post appears in Strata News #569.
Question: Irregular gutter cleaning has resulted in roof leaks and damage to my walls and ceiling. Who is responsible to carry out regular maintenance such as gutter cleaning?
My roof has been leaking ever since I moved in. This has caused damage to my walls and carpets. I clean the gutters that I can reach myself regularly, however, there are gutters that I cannot reach that have never been cleaned the entire time I have lived here and I believe this is causing the roof leak issue.
I have emailed my Strata manager many times about this and after many many months she replied with ‘I suggest you ask a roof plumber to inspect the leak, then look at roof replacement.’
I have since looked back through the strata records and found that professional gutter cleaning has been included on every AGM agenda, however, the issue has never been discussed at any meetings.
Who is responsible for roof inspections, gutter cleaning, etc to rectify the problem?
Answer: If the plan of subdivision states that the Roofing Areas are part of the common property, the owners corporation is responsible.
Your plan of subdivision will determine whether the owners corporation is responsible to pay for the roof, gutter cleaning and related works (Roofing Areas). If the plan of subdivision states that the Roofing Areas are part of the common property, the owners corporation is responsible to pay. On the other hand, if the plan of subdivision provides that the Roofing Areas are private property, the owners are responsible for the works.
Alternatively, if the owners corporation passed a special resolution to provide a service of Roof Areas cleaning (if these areas are private property) the owners corporation is responsible to pay for the works.
Rochelle Castro
RC & Co Lawyers
E: [email protected]
P: 1300 072 626
This post appears in Strata News #548.
Question: My intercom is broken but I’m not sure if the fault is with my handset or the entire unit. Who pays and how do I get this fixed?
My intercom system is not working. I’m not sure if the problem is with my particular handset or an issue with the main system. I’ve reported the problem to the strata manager and they have stated it’s the unit owner’s responsibility to pay for the handset if it’s broken. If it’s is the complete unit downstairs that is the problem, who is responsibility to investigate and repair the problem?
Answer: The owners corporation can have the intercom repaired and then “may” on-charge the owner of the lot, if necessary.
When it comes to servicing an intercom system, it would be best to approach the owners corporation committee for direction. Committees can see (or do) things differently from one to the next (as long as they don’t breach their responsibilities or regulations).
The Owners Corporation Act 2006 section 49 (1) and (2) states:
Cost of repairs, maintenance or other works
An owners corporation may recover as a debt the cost of repairs, maintenance, or other works undertaken wholly or substantially for the benefit of some only of the lots from the lot owners, but the amount payable by those lot owners is to be calculated on the basis that the lot owner of the lot that benefits more pays more.
If a committee follows the letter of the law as per above, whenever a buzzer needs repairing, they can have it repaired and then “may” on-charge the owner of the lot that “owns” that specific buzzer. OR, seeing it’s the external head unit located at the main entrance of the building, the committee may have a “swings & roundabouts” approach knowing that at some point, all other owners may face the same issue. In this case, the committee may be happy to have the buzzer repaired and paid through the owners corporation. On the other hand, if the fault is with the handset INSIDE the private lot, then unless the committee instructs otherwise, it would be the lot owner’s responsibility seeing the faulty handset is only benefitting the one lot and no-one else.
To determine which piece of equipment is at fault will require a technician to visit the site and assess both units. The initial inspection or call out may need to be covered by the lot owner. Again, there’s no harm approaching the committee for their view on this. The subsequent repairs may be covered by the owners corporation if the committee approves.
In summary, prior to engaging a contractor, seek direction from your committee to determine how they approach any repairs relating to the building’s intercom system.
Guy Garreffa
StrataPoint
E: [email protected]
P: (03) 8726 9962
This post appears in the December 2021 edition of The VIC Strata Magazine.
Have a question about common property boundaries or something to add to the article? Leave a comment below.
Read next:
- VIC: How Can an Owners Corporation Handle Incorrect Parking?
- VIC: Q&A What is a 99 year lease for owners corporation in Victoria?
- Why are Strata Managers so difficult to get along with?
Visit Maintenance and Common Property OR Strata Title Information Victoria.
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.
I have recently completed a renovation to my investment apartment.
During these works a water isolation valve in a wall cavity needed to be replaced.
Considering that the water pipe supplies multiple apartments and is not in the airspace of the apartment, should this replacement cost be covered and the responsibility by the Owners Corporation?
Cement from the exterior of my third floor apartment balcony in Melbourne fell off. The owners corp manager says it is my responsibility to repair. Owners corporation’s insurance denied the claim saying it is not an accident and is a result of slow deterioration. The manager wants me to repair it. Is he right or should the OC pay?
Re termite damage. Victoria
We have found termite damage in our external walls which are also considered common property .we have fund no damage in internal walls. We have photos to prove allegations. Termite prevention work was started in 2018 but not prior to 2018 and no assessment for frame integrity was completed post infestation. Damage likely occurred before this time as no reported activity has since been noted however
Our body Corp has refused to support repair despite only being found in the external common property wall ; they have asked for proof with photos of the outside of entry into building this is not possible as termites burrow and don’t survive in light and infestation occurred some time ago- prior to 2018
Could you please advise of course of action and whose responsibility it is to fix the frame damage
If there is a leak in the apartment above my unit and the owners above is refusing to repair, what are my options?
Letterbox Keys – If I misplace or damage my letterbox key, who is responsible to replace the key?
Hi Andrew
Callum Wilson, Bright & Duggan has responded to your comment in the article above.
I refer to the statement above: Answer: As a general rule, where there are no defined notations, the median boundary applies and the exterior wall would be common property.
This is incorrect for a Plan of Subdivision created under the Subdivision Act. 1988 These plans will always have the boundaries set out but assistance may be required to interpret the plan.
The default of “:median” when no notation, only applies to Plans of Strata Subdivision created under the Strata Titles Act between 1967 and 1989.
In regard to implied easements for maintenance, i read somewhere:
“but an easement is only created or capable of providing rights to the lot owner (or the owners corporation as the case may be) if the easement or right is necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the lot or the common property and is consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the other lots and the common property”
In the case of window cleaning, if it is possible for individual lot owners to safely clean their own windows or glass balustrades can the OC enforce an imp[lied easement for window cleaning given that it is not necessary, but more so as a result of lazy lot owners not doing it themselves.
Hello Nikki,
I have read lots of the answers in the above section, which are very interesting. In several, there is reference to Subdivision Plans and owner entitlement and unit liability. Can you advise whether or not the liability only applies to common property or does it apply to common expenses too, for example, the corporate insurance. If this doesn’t apply to insurance, can the OC by majority vote.
I look forward to your advice.
Regards Peter
Hi,
Our block of units require a new roof. Is this a body corporate expense or the owners of the top floor? (Just ground level and level 1) thank you.
Hi l have an issue that the boundaries l had to get proved and the common driveway is on my land what. An l do. Alsoy neigbour has her airconditiner ony land next toy back door. What. An l do about it lf l have it disconnect will l be in trouble.
Hi,
I am planning to buy off the plan unit in Victoria. I would like to take the first unit which has its own driveway and don’t have to share anything else with other 2 units but Its noted on plan of subdivision the driveway which is for unit 2 & 3 is listed as common property.
will I be responsible for this driveway as well ?
Hi Lathika
All the best with the purchase. This article should assist: VIC: Q&A Individual Strata Insurance for a Small Owners Corporation
I live in a townhouse unit which 3 unit attached together and common wall between my unit and next door unit moved and got crack on wall and gyprock hanging and looks it is going to fall.Strata says I have to fix the gyprock on the wall .But manager of strata used to say any thing on common wall covered by strata except the painting .Who must fix falling gyprock on common wall?
We have replied to this question in the article above.
Hi, We own a fully detached unit on a strata title in Victoria. There is a block of 6 apartments on the title along with our unit. The roofs (tiles etc) are defined as being Common Property (I assume due to following the same standard as the apartment block).
We would like to have our roof repaired as it’s leaking and has cracked tiles. We understand this is the responsibility of the Owners Corp. The issue we have is that we believe there is a clause that if the repair/works benefit a single lot owner then that lot owner becomes responsible (or something along those lines) meaning we’d have to pay for any roof repairs even though it’s classified as common property.
Can you confirm if this is the case?
And if so, we pay ~30% more in OC fees than any other lot owner due to the size of our lot. If the roof is no longer included as really being “common property” (as we would pay any maintenance/repair costs), is there an avenue we can go down to reduce our lot liability to reduce our fees?
Thanks,
Cam.
Hi Cam,
We have responded to your question in the above article.
Hope this helps.
Regards
Joel Chamberlain
Thanks Joel.
I’m still a little confused though.
Are you able to confirm if there is a section in the OC Act which allows works that benefit a single lot owner to be charged to that lot owner even if the area being worked on is defined as common property?
Cheers,
Cam
Hi Cam
I believe that is the section of the Act Joel quoted:
OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 – SECT 49
Cost of repairs, maintenance or other works
Hi Cam
If you want to go down this channel, you may want to get some legal advice re changing lot liability (probably needs a ballot, change of plan of subdivision – onerous etc). Best cause of action is probably to have a legal binding clause re common property (roof) – s/he who benefits, pays more (Section 49 of the Act). It can be costly getting a lawyer to draft it, but worth it in the long run in terms of transparency/fairness.
If you want to do more research, have a look at VCAT’s recent decisions (in their website). The clause in the ACT is vague. But VCAT have had a lot of cases regarding this.
Ask the OC Manager to organise a lawyer to attend the next AGM.
Do you want the OC to pay for maintenance of roof irrespective of who benefits or vice versa?
In Victoria, you can go after the builder (but I believe the time-frame is 7 years)
Totally depends on who did the works and when.
Because of safety concerns, I will fix first (litigation risk, further damage), whilst waiting for the matter to be brought up in the courts, which sadly I think these matters will end up.
You can speak to the surveyor who drew up the plan to advise whose responsibility it is. If surveyor is no longer alive, you can ask for any other surveyor to clarify and if that fails, I would go to your Tribunal to finalise the matter once and for all. It would probably be the interest of all lots to have this matter decided by the Tribunal.
LVC
Melbourne.
We are a strata plan of three units, town houses in NSW.. I finally received the Capital Works Plan and noticed that a fence bordering the private open space at the front of unit 3 with a public lane is included in the capital works plan. My understanding is that maintenance of this fence is not OC responsibility if I understand the article correctly. If there is no common space between the property and fence, it belongs to the unit owner. Our Strata Manager and I have arguments about the fact that the capital works plan is incorrect. The strata manager brought cubic space into the conversation which relates to pipes etc. The plan of the surveyor does not really give the answer either, except that it outlines common property and garden property of the owner. Who can help me putting this in the correct perspective please.
I have a property which is one of three units with a shared driveway with two other units. The driveway is the only shared land, with all services for the back two units running under the driveway. Our services (to the original property prior to subdivision) run on our property.
We have planning permission to have our own driveway, so we will no longer Have any need for the shared driveway. My question is, when we no longer share any property with the other units, Can we remove ourselves from the body corporate?
If the other 2 units agree, then yes you can. Though I think this would need to go to the legal channel for finalisation.
Hi,
I have a quick query regarding what I see as construction faults to multiple apartment within our 2 storey, 13 unit complex.
I had flagged with the body corporate manager previously that the front door step elevation was not to safety standards (in the common area as noted by my building inspector), have a very wide and deep storm water drain on my balcony that is a safety hazard and an incorrectly installed aircondlting unit that is apparently collecting and pooling water into the concrete below.
The body corporate has classed the latter two as my issue issue as an owner, but surely they are building/ construction based issues? I know for a fact that at least one neighbour has the same air-conditioning unit issue and two others with storm water or balcony leak issues with in the building.
Any suggestions?
Thanks, Erin
My brother(80 years old) has a electrical power problem. In the group of units the mains supply come in at the north end of the block of 10 units. From there a sub-main runs internally down to a fuse board in his lot at the southern end of the block. The circuit breaker intermittently trips especially after rain. An electrician has pulled the fuses and tested the wiring in his lot and found no fault. The electrician has run a temporary service from his circuit breaker at the north end of the building to his fuse box. My brother tells me that repairs including a window replacement was carried out on a lot in the middle of the block.
The management wants my brother to pay for investigating the source of the problem.
My question is who is responsible for this electrical sub-main.
Energy Safe Victoria holds the Body Corporate to be an electrical supplier with all the responsibilities of an electrical supplier.
Hi,
We have a burst water pipe running from our hot water system to our apartment. The pipes runs through the concrete floor (between the 2nd and 3rd floors) and the leak is in the floor. Is this a body corp responsibility? Thanks
Damon
Did someone put a complaint in, Why has the owners Corp now asked you to remove it? If your on the committee hold a meeting to pass it, how many other units have the same, this inconsistency if is too common when it comes to management of properties. Lastly think about replace your management for not doing their job correctly.
Phil
Hi Phil, it is difficult to find a good strata manager. We changed last year. After the honeymoon period was over the service ebbed away. The portfolio manager left the company and the successor is inexperienced and snappy in her answers. I asked the owner to pass our portfolio on to another staff. Waiting for an answer.
If you have a contract that doesn’t expire until next year, and still no change of portfolio manager, you and the Committee will need to take a more active role until contract expires.
ie, get your own quotes, get them approved by Committee and ensure that you get the gutters cleaned etc.
If you are wanting advice, seek the answers from a different body corp. Knowing that you are looking for a change, they will help if they want your business. This approach will also allow you to try a number of body corp companies and you can find which one helps you the best.
We are in a block of 4 of a self managed OC in Victoria, we have 2 garden beds, on common property that lies between our property and a driveway that provides access to garages for 3 units, our interpretation of rule 4.2(1) where we are responsible for the area in and around our lot, …. this question has been moved and replied to in this post: VIC: Q&A Problems when a Resident is Appointed to Maintain Gardens
Owners Corp gave me written permission to my email asking them if i could put an air con unit on my outside wall,
They gave written permission without asking the commitee members fast forward 2 and a half years the owners corp are telling me to take it down because i never got permission.I am on the commitee another commitee member wrote back saying to leave it as he can see its the managements fault for giving me permission. But the management insist that i misunderstood their letter and what they wrote and i must take it down and ask permission still.
Many Thanks
If you had the proof, it should have been the OC costs to pay (as OC manager acts on the Committee behalf)
If the OC manager did not seek approval then it is up to the Committee to ask the OC manager to pay.
I live in a block of three apartments with no body corporate only shared water bill and insurance, I’m at street front on the ground floor, another lady above me, and unit three is at the rear, and they infect have another basement level in the same footprint as the unit. All the services water, gas and power run along the East side of the building including storm water and sewer etc.
All the land has been split and allocated to each unit from day one when it was built. I own the front courtyard (on the street), the lady above owns the West side courtyard and the unit at the back owns the majority of the land which wraps around from the east side/street, all along the building to the rear of the block and around the North side and again to the west side.
I share with the lady above the driveway/carport on the west side, and unit three has the East side carport. About 8 months ago unit three has installed a garage door in the carport for privacy, and refuse to give us the code in order to access our services such meter boards, hot water system, gas, windows and so forth without calling them to let us in. Now Ive had nothing but problems in my unit, its crumbling and now we are forced to do some extensive works like replace all the plumbing in and under the slab and walls which is a nightmare. I’ve had nothing but problems connecting power and gas services because there’s no access to the meter boxes, and unit three insists on calling the power company on our behalf to give them the code to the garage door etc. which in the meantime I receive letters from the power and gas companies that they have been there to take the reading but couldn’t access. I’ve had plumbers, engineers, electricians, builders all wait outside for more then an hour at a time so they will open the door on multiple occassions…
Unit 3 sewer and stormwater pipes run under the footpath from their unit to the rear of the block, and unit1 and 2’s run to the front of the block under the footpath in their property.
So a couple of questions here:
1. Is unit 3 allowed to lock away the area that has ALL the services that belong to the whole block from accessing them?
2. We are on a strata title so who owns what?? Do I own the wall from the outside of my unit? Can I restrict unit three from leaning piles of timber logs on my wall right on the cold and hot water pipes? am I liable to my sewer and storm water plumbing that run in the ground in unit 3 property?
I look forward to some advise.
Thanks,
Shay
See the case seiwa pty Ltd V owners corp
Hi
We are in a development with 60 units in VIC.
The letterboxes (accessible from the street) have been broken into in the last 6 months. The body corporate committee has decided to relocate the letterboxes to a completely different location within the development without consulting any of the owners.
New key to the letterbox together with a letter stating that new letterboxes have been made and they are to be installed at a new location in the next 5 days were dropped into all the units 5 days before the installation. The owners were informed of new letterboxes to be installed prior but this was the first time that the owners were informed of the decision of relocating the letterboxes.
My question is that does the body corporate committee has the power to make such decision of relocating the letterboxes without consulting any of the owners.
PS. Australia Post did approve the new location of the letterboxes but it is impossible for delivery/courier personnel to locate the letterboxes if they need to drop off delivery notice.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
Hello David,
I am interested in the outcome of your query. regards Sara
We are living in a loop style street. Each house has its own title. At the top or head of the street is an odd shaped parcel of land, due to gum trees the grass is scraggly and never mowed the primary use for the land is people living opposite park their cars on it. My question is. A resident is asking for monies to be paid to a body corporate for this land. Is this fair and reasonable or arecthey just pocketing a bit of money for themselves
Thank you for any responce
Phil
Hi Phil
We have received the following reply back from Daniel Hunt, Ace Body Corporate Management:
It is possible that there may be a genuine owners corporation in existence but it may not have been effectively managed or communicated to all owners in the past.
The easiest way to solve this situation is to ask the resident that is seeking money for a copy of the applicable plan of subdivision impacting this land.
The plan of subdivision will outline the applicable lot entitlement and lot liability of all members involved in the owners corporation.
If this person can’t produce this information, then ask to be provided with any documentation that establishes your financial commitments to this piece of land.
If this can’t be obtained and there are no official council rulings, then likely you do not have to comply.
You may like to check this information over with a strata lawyer or a conveyancer if problems persist.
Hi We live in a two unit lot in NSW we have an access road that serves us and our neighbours which there are two of, with a total of 4 all up, our boundary goes to the edge of the road,the access road has been built on Councils road reserve .
The road is in need of repair as with the retaining wall .
The Council insists that the road is for the access of the 4 residents and therefore is there responsibility to maintain the road , we where never informed of this when we bought our unit , can you confirm that we have to pay for the upkeep of the road and retaining wall .
I recently purchased an apartment with an enclosed rear yard in Victoria. It was purchased knowing full well that yard was not on title, however the fact that yard was not on title was not known to the BC and other owners until the sale eventuated.
The Fence must be 30 years old at least and one owner has mentioned that the fence has been present since they purchased the property in the early 80’s
There has been infrequent, although consistent mention or pulling the fence down to return it to common ownership. Naturally I would like to keep the fence from a privacy perspective and also look to enter into a “Pepper corn” Lease for the use of the space.
The fence is in need of replacement which I would be happy to pay for as part of the arrangement and do landscaping etc etc to improve the quality of the yard.
Any suggestions on how to go about this? The fact that the fence has stood for so long does that give me any entitlement as the owner? Is this a legal matter where I should seek advice and if so any recommendations of solicitors in the CBD area or do I plead my case at the Annual BC meeting?
Thanks in advance for your responses.
The owner of a workshop has unregistered cars ready for wrecking parked in my parking space I have asked him nicely to have them remove ,his answer was ” I will within 6 months they will be removed ” I need to rent my unit and with these cars parked in my space it is impossible, strata manager told me it’s not up to him to send him a letter. What can I do to have these cars removed immediately I am loosing rent money?
Hi
I own a townhouse which l rent situated between two house owners. My current tenant is constantly bringing mangled cars and parking them outside the garage because he fills the inside of the garage with motorbikes and other cars. The cars that he drives and that of his son are mainly parked out on the street. The two other owners are calling me to have him remove these cars etc elsewhere. I went and saw the situation and the cars outside the garage are not obstructing the common area but they are fed up with the coming and going of these cars and late night work on the cars or bikes. I have approached my property agent who said nothing can be done as they are neatly parked etc. Can you please give me some advice on the situation?
Hi I am wanting clarification on the following matter I’m having regarding my tenant. I own a townhouse that is situated between two owner occupiers. My tenant is currently using my garage and the outside of the garage to park multiple cars and motorbikes on the common area. He uses the street to park his two cars and one other that belongs to his son. He oftens leaves these cars on both the street and my property for any length of time. The current home owners are complaining to me regarding this on going issue and in the mean time l have contacted my property manager who has informed me that the cars outside my garage is neat and tidy and nothing can be done.
Hello, this is quite an obscure comment, but wondering if anyone can give some advice.
I’ve found this article upon searching victorian strata plans and common property.
I’m a graduate architect with a focus on developing new housing solution for Melbourne’s Middle Suburbs to support plot agglomerations and collective development.
I’m currently in the process of trying to get a grasp of how ownership could work for a collective living model that we are proposing.
The design scheme has recently been recipient of an international design:
award https://www.domain.com.au/news/we-are-still-in-the-dark-ages-melbourne-twins-bold-new-proposal-for-middlering-suburbs-20171124-gzq05s/
And we are now talking with interested developers and residents.
My question relates to the fact that in our scheme, the ground floor is conceived as a kind of ‘common’ space that is collectively maintained.
This could be a shared garden or combine common uses such as laundries, parking, storage, workshops, services etc.
Amongst this common space, residents also have a private stair and entry space to access their private home which is on the 1st and 2nd level.
I was wondering, how ownership might be resolved to enable a situation in which the ground floor is common property,
but the floor space of the dwelling over the 2 upper levels and entry on ground floor can be privately owned.
Hope that this is a clear enough explanation to understand my query. Anyone have any insights?
This is not allowed under fire safety regulations, call Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) if in doubt. Occupiers, owners and visitors may need to escape upstairs, including accessing the roof in a fire or emergency if lower storey on fire and they can’t escape via exits on ground level.
Under current Victorian building laws, no building surveyor will issue a building permit for sealing off common propert stairs unless they are not aware of the fire safety compliance (hope not).
My son owns a single storey villa in a 3 unit complex. While the Registered Plan indicates that the lower boundary of each unit is that part of the site which is within the vertical or near vertical boundaries of the respective units (presumably that means ground level) and the upper boundary is 8 metres above its lower boundary (which would no doubt include the ceiling space and roof), there is no reference to the boundary between the interior of the unit and the external face of the building interfacing with common property (unpainted face brick). Does this mean that the unit owner is responsible for all maintenance of the building structure within the lot including external repairs and also building insurance? If so, does the individual unit owner require approval from the Owners Corporation to make any changes to the external façade which don’t encroach on common property?
We live in a block of 10 units and I am aware that there are Model rules and have been told if we wish to bring in new rules we need to go to engage a solicitor etc .
The rules would like to implement in are common courtesy:
a) All pets must be on a leash when in the common areas and owners responsible in cleaning up any mess.
b) Garage doors must be kept closed and rubbish bins not left in common area unless it is delivery pick up days.
c) Washing to be hung on clothes lines provided and not on privacy screens facing Common Property.
Hi,
We recently purchased and moved into a unit in a block of 13 single level units (in Victoria). All lots are attached to each other. We are keen to explore the use of the roof space either for storage or office/bedroom. It’s a small dwelling with a reasonable back yard. There doesn’t seem to be any mention of height limitations on the Title Plan/Plan of Subdivision provided. It only states “Depth Limitation Does Not Apply” Followed by “Location of Boundaries Defined by Building. Exterior Face: All boundaries defined by the external walls of a building. Median: All other boundaries.”
The Owners Corp levy includes maintenance services to such things as the gutters and downpipes. We are referred to the Model Rules for the other restrictions/rules.
My question is, are we within our rights to pursue developing the space below (say for a cellar) and the attic space, with the understanding that the area in and above the roof is owned by us? I’ve looked into the council site and not sure where I would go to get further clarity on boundaries.
Any insight is much appreciated.
Thanks
We live in an apartment building with a Certificate of Plan number.PCS 12777041 – it is not a strata title plan. An internal to the apartment stair rail has detached – is this common property or our responsibility to repair?
Hi Anney
We have received the following reply back from Stuart Mellington, Select OwnersCorp Management:
If the “internal stair” is in a common hallway or shared area of the complex it would be a common (shared) feature and therefore the responsibility for the maintenance would be shared.
If it is inside an apartment and therefore limited to the use of the occupants of that apartment and their guests it would be a private item and the responsibility of that owner.
There are 36 units. Letterboxes for the units are erected on Common Property. They are selected, purchased and erected by the Owners Corporation.
Can a unit owner remove and replace a letterbox with his own choice despite the ruling of the Owners Corporation that all letterboxes are the responsibility of the Owners Corporation, including replacement of damaged ones?
Hi Melissa
Thanks for your question. Do you mind confirming the units are located in VIC?
Yes they are in Victoria
Hi Melissa
We have received the following reply back from Stuart Mellington, Select OwnersCorp Management:
I think the enquirer has answered their own question when they stated these are on common property and the Owners Corporation installed and maintains these items. It follows from this that a lot owner is not entitled to interfere with or replace the one allocated for their use without the consent of the Owners Corporation who collectively own and maintain this facility.
Your owners corporation manager should be able to advise you if the driveway is common property. If it is common property the model rules are quite clear :
‘3.2 Vehicles and parking on common property
An owner or occupier of a lot must not, unless in the case of an emergency, park or leave a motor vehicle or other vehicle or permit a motor vehicle or other vehicle—
(a) to be parked or left in parking spaces situated on common property and allocated for other lots; or
(b) on the common property so as to obstruct a driveway, pathway, entrance or exit to a lot; or
(c) in any place other than a parking area situated on common property specified for that purpose by the owners corporation.’
Many Owners Corporation Managers will not talk to tenants so you should ask your rental manager or owner to ask the Owners Corporation for clarification of the common property and if approval has been given for the persons to use this area of driveway.
Thanks for your comments, Brian.
Hi. After purchasing a unit several years ago, we have discovered that the terrace above was not sealed properly and the resulting water damage has caused extensive damage to our unit which is located below. The OC’s Insurance Company has advised the Policy does not cover balconies (or terraces). However, from my reading of the Plan of Subdivision, the terrace above is effectively the roof of our apartment and forms the Lot’s border which on the Plan only goes to the ‘underside of the ceiling’ and the ‘Interior Face’. I assume that this means the terrace is, like the roof of the building, regarded as Common Property, but would be interested in your views.
Also, for strata insurance purposes, you mention that, regardless whether the individual or the owners corporation own the walls, this will generally all be covered under the one strata insurance policy. In this case, it shouldn’t matter whether it is common property or not, but again would be interested in your views. (The insurance company’s initial comment was that the OC’s policy doesn’t cover terraces or balconies, although these are not specifically excluded in the Policy and are part of the Plan of Subdivision. .
Hi Glenn
We have received the following reply back from Daniel Hunt, Ace Body Corporate Management:
The article is intended to be provided as general advice and while we have attempted to cover as many commonalities as possible, specific questions like this will often need to seek legal clarification.
Interpreting the Plan of Subdivision can be incredibly difficult, but an expert strata lawyer should be able to lead you in the right direction and then determine if you have a case with the insurance policy.
Hi,
We are tennants renting a unit in a block of 4 units. Each unit has its own lock up garage. The driveway is a narrow straight route so the units and garages are in a st line. We are renting the third unit.
Our neighbors in unit four or the last unit own 2 cars. Even though they have a lock up garage they often park both the cars outside their unit. This makes it very hard for us as there is no space to maneuver our four wheel drive and park in our garage. We have tried speaking to them and requesting if they could kindly park one of the cars inside but they want their convenience and have suggested if we cannot maneuver we can park outside on the streets.
They seem to think as both the cars are in front of their unit they are well within their rights to park however they wish?
Is this correct? I thought the driveway was common shared space between four units.but they seem to think any space in front of their unit is theirs and we should figure out some other ways to park? Please advise where we stand in our rights and how can we explain to them if they are wrong. Having a conversation is not helping unfortunately.
Thanks
Hi Rupal
We have been supplied with this response from Stuart Mellington, Select OwnersCorp Management:
Perfect timing for this one as a VCAT determination has just been made in regards this matter and I have included this below for your reference. It is noted that there existed special circumstances for the parking on common property but not for extended periods.
Access this link for a copy of the Model Rules and I draw your attention to Rule 3.1 (1) which refers to the interference of the use of the common property such that it obstructs the use of others.
More specifically 3.2 is the Rule that deals with the parking of vehicles. This clearly deals with this matter and prohibits the inappropriate parking on common property.
The VCAT Ruling provides greater explanation in the determination as it refers to parking on common property even under special circumstances.
In situations such as these the manager should have been engaged to issue the appropriate breach notice prior to the commencement of proceedings in VCAT or the manager is deficient in their duties and this may require review of their appointment. Should the property in question not have a manger then the application to VCAT can be applied for directly by the people that are effected by the inappropriate behaviour. This independent action of a resident can also be initiated by an individual even if there is a manager should it be necessary to do so.
Morris v Lui (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 1103 (28 July 2017)
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
OWNERS CORPORATIONS LIST VCAT REFERENCE: OC37/2017
CATCHWORDS: Parking or leaving vehicle on common property – discretion to make a qualified order following a breach of rules – Owners Corporations Act 2006 s165.
APPLICANT: Elizabeth Morris
FIRST RESPONDENT: James Lui
SECOND RESPONDENT: Paul Bormann
THIRD RESPONDENT: Lara Bormann
WHERE HELD: 55 King Street, Melbourne
BEFORE: Senior Member A. Vassie
HEARING TYPE: Hearing
DATE OF HEARING: 21 June 2017
DATE OF ORDER: 21 June 2017
DATE OF REASONS: 28 July 2017
CITATION: Morris v Lui (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 1103
Orders
1. The second and third respondents must not breach rule 3.2 of the model rules of the owners corporation by parking or leaving a motor vehicle in any place situated on common property, and in particular must not park or leave a motor vehicle on the common property which is the driveway in front of the garage of unit 2, except in the case of emergency and except that they may stand a motor vehicle on the driveway in front of unit 2 for no more than 6 minutes at a time for the purpose of assisting their child to board or leave the motor vehicle.
2. The second and third respondents must pay to the applicant $61.50 by way of reimbursement of the application fee she paid.
Appearances:
For the Applicant: In person
For the First Respondent: No appearance
For the Second and Third Respondents: Mr P. Borrmann
Reasons For Decision
1. The applicant Elizabeth Morris owns unit 3 on plan of subdivision no. PS327793M. The land is at 8 Boondara Road, Mont Albert North. The plan of subdivision describes common property. The first respondent James Lui is the owner of unit 2. The second and third respondents, Paul Bormann and Lara Bormann, are occupiers of unit 2 as tenants of Mr Lui.
2. In this proceeding Ms Morris asked for an order that the Bormanns not park or leave a motor car on common property. Originally she had named Mr Lui alone as a respondent. By an order made on 11 May 2017 the Tribunal joined the Bormanns as respondents.
3. I heard the proceeding on 21 June 2017. Ms Morris and Mr Bormann attended the hearing and gave evidence. At the end of the hearing I made an order that the Bormanns must not park or leave a vehicle on common property except that they may stand a motor vehicle on a driveway for no more than 6 minutes at a time for the purpose of assisting their child to board or leave the vehicle. I gave oral reasons for the decision.
4. By an email dated 3 July 2017 Ms Morris requested written reasons for decision. At the conclusion of the hearing I had handed back to the parties various documents, including photographs, that they had handed to me during the hearing. So I have to give these reasons without being able to refer to the exact contents of those documents.
5. The common property includes a driveway, which has a reverse L-shape, there being a point at which it turns at right angles, then runs past an entrance to Ms Morris’s garage then past her front door. It ends at the entrance to the garage which is part of unit 3, occupied by the Bormanns.
6. Ms Morris complains that the Bormanns park one of their cars on the driveway, outside the entrance to their garage, with the result that she is impeded when trying to drive her car out of her garage. She complains about the noise created when the door of the Bormanns’ car are slammed, several times a day, and the noise which the Bormanns’ child makes, screaming when taken into or from the car.
7. Both parties have medical issues. Ms Morris has had spinal surgery and cannot turn or twist her heard painlessly when driving into or out of her garage. Her car has a disabled person’s parking permit attached to it. The Bormanns’ 9 month old child suffers from a hip disorder, which means that helping the child into and out of a car is an ordeal for the child as well as for them. They have a disabled person’s parking permit too.
8. There was no dispute that the Bormanns do leave or stand one of their cars on the common property driveway outside their garage. They say that that is a necessity. Their garage is occupied by a “heritage vehicle”, according to Mr Bormann. At all events, according to Mr Bormann, they need to assist their child by helping him in or out of their car, wherever it is left or it stands.
9. Section 137(a) of the Owners Corporation Act 2006 (“the Act”) provides that a lot occupier must comply with the Act and with the rules of the owners corporation. The model rules set out in a schedule to the Owners Corporation Regulations 2007 are the rules of the owners corporation in this proceeding.
10. Model rule 3.2(e) provides that an owner or occupier of a lot must not, unless in the case of an emergency, park or leave a motor vehicle on common property in any place other than a parking area specified for that purpose by the owners corporation. Mr Bormann did not contend that the driveway in front of his garage door was specified as a parking area.
11. The hearing before me on 21 June 2017 was not the first Tribunal hearing that involved the Bormanns’ conduct in leaving the car where they do on the driveway. There had been a hearing on 28 October 2016 in the Residential Tenancies List in a proceeding on which Mr Lui had been the applicant and the Bormanns the respondents. Ms Morris had not been a party, but had attended the hearing and had participated in it in some way. At that hearing the presiding Member made an order which recorded an agreement that the Bormanns would leave or stand their car in the driveway for no more than ten minutes at a time. Before me, Mr Bormann argued that because of that order Ms Morris was debarred from making her claim in this proceeding for a different order. I rejected the argument. On a proper construction of the order made in that earlier proceeding, the agreement set out in the order was between Mr Lui and the Bormanns only; Ms Morris was not a party to the agreement. She was entitled to begin and pursue this second proceeding.
12. Clearly the Bormanns are in breach of model rule 3.2(c) every time they leave or stand a car on the driveway. Under s165 of the Act, the Tribunal has the power to require a person to comply with the rules of the owners corporations but, more generally, it has the power to make any order it considers fair. The discretion to make an order following a breach of a rule includes a discretion not to make any order at all, or to make an order with qualifications, if the Tribunal considers it fair to make such an order.
13. An aerial photograph of the driveway, which Mr Bormann showed me, persuaded me that Ms Morris, hampered as she is with her spinal injury, is inconvenienced whenever the Bormanns leave or stand their car where they do on the driveway and she drives her car out of her own garage. I was less impressed with her evidence about noise. I thought that her evidence about it was exaggerated. The breach of the rule was not so trivial or harmless that I should properly have exercised my discretion to make no order at all. On the other hand the need for the car to be left or stood on the driveway so that their disabled child could be assisted in or out of the car meant, in my view, that it would not be fair to make an order that they should not leave or stand the car there at all.
14. Accordingly I exercised the discretion in the way that appeared in the order I made, requiring the Bormanns not to breach rule 3.2 of the model rules but excepting that they may stand or leave a car on the driveway in front of their unit for no more than six minutes at a time. I accepted Mr Bormann’s evidence that he and his wife needed at least six minutes each time to do what was necessary to assist their child to board or to leave the car and then from or into their home.
15. Ms Morris had another complaint. She did not mention it in her written application but I allowed her to raise it for my determination, Mr Bormann not having objected to my doing so. The complaint was about litter in the area near the front door of unit 2. She produced photographs of the litter. There are only limited circumstances in which the Act or the model rules regulate what a lot owner or occupier may or may not do within the lot. The littered area was within unit 2. One of the limited circumstances is that model rule 1 provides that a lot owner or occupier must not use the lot so as to cause a hazard to the health, safety or security of an owner, occupier or use of another lot. There was no evidence that the litter created such a hazard. None of the other limited circumstances existed. The littering did not constitute a breach of the Act or of the rules.
16. Under s115C(1)(c) and (2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 there is a presumption that an applicant who has substantially succeeded against a party in a proceeding is entitled to an order under s115B that that other party reimburse the applicant the whole of any fees and paid by the applicant. Ms Morris paid a fee of $61.50 upon filing her application. There was no feature of this case which tended to suggest that the presumption did not apply. Ms Morris had substantially succeeded in the proceeding; I had made an order, albeit with a qualification, following a breach of the rules which she had proved. So I ordered the Bormanns to reimburse her for the filing fee.
A. Vassie
Senior Member
28 July 2017
Hello, do the external walls to a balcony on a strata property belong to the owner? Or Owner’s Corp? When there is something that needs attention?
We received the following email over the weekend:
I live in an over 55’s complex in Victoria. We have villas within the complex and all have their own title deed. We have recently been advised that we are responsible for various section of the buildings on the outside. The verandahs on the back of the villas were built at the same time as the villas but these, we are led to believe, are our responsibility ie upkeep, painting etc.
Some of our villas have bay windows and small verandahs and some have porches at the front of the building. These too, we are told, are our responsibility. This gets a bit confusing when it comes to who pays for what. What I would really like to know is – is this information we have been given correct? I was always under the impression that the outside of the building is owners’ corporation and the inside is the owners responsibility.
If we are responsible for what is actually on the outside of the villa, it is going to get a bit tricky when it comes to insurance.
We have received a reply back from Ace Body Corporate Management:
Thank you for the question.
Firstly, it is always recommended that you reference the plan of subdivision for your property as this will explicitly outline what belongs to the individual and what belongs to the Owners Corporation. The Plan of Subdivision can often be difficult to interpret so we always recommend you seek a strata specific lawyer for guidance on who is responsible for payment. (If you would like, I can recommend some strata specific legal companies in Victoria).
It is important you also carefully read your retirement villages contract as there may be different types of contracts offered to residents in the same retirement village. For example, two residents living next door to each other in similar accommodation, who entered the village at different times, might have different contracts with different rights and responsibilities.
For strata specific insurance purposes, regardless if the individual or the owners corporation own the walls, this will generally all be covered under the one strata insurance policy. It is recommended that you read over your strata insurance policy and make sure this is the case. Please contact strata insurance experts for more information such as Whitbread Insurance Brokers (1300 424 627) or CHU (1800 022 444).