STO Forums

Search

Type your search criteria above and click Search to search the forums.

To see if someone has already answered a query similar to yours, click the Search button above and search for terms related to your question.

Patio Extension

By Michele Ricketts on Wed, 07 Mar 2012 at 22:56

I am an owner, residing in myproperty for almost 6 years. In conducting long overdue maintenance to our unit in 2009/2010 (painting and damp proofing externally, as well as repairing water damage inside our unit), the contractor apponited by the Body Corp removed several tiles from the front patio of my unit in December 2009 with the intention of replacing those which were cracked and making the patio even, as it was sagging at this spot. This tiles were removed and the resulting hole was left open to the elements for nearly 5 months before a suitable replacement tiles were found and the tiles replaced, badly... The exposure of this area to the elements, and one of the wettest summers we have had for a while, has resulted in the end portion of my patio "slipping" from the main patio by about a centimeter. The tiles were replaced but were not laid evenly and have sunken further than before and the tiles around the newly laid tiles are now cracking too.
Upon complaining about this and many other issues which had not been resolved in terms of the "snag list" given to the body corporate upon their request for incomplete or issues in regard to the contractor's work in early 2011, i eventually got feedback in November 2011 and all of the snag list resolved with the exceptio of the patio... I was told upon inspection by a member of the body corp that they did not believe this portion of the patio to be in the plan and that it must have been added? If this is the case I can only think that the previous owner, who i believe bought off plan, either had this added at point of build OR added on later, however, I was unaware until it was shown to me that my patio was longer than others in the complex.
Due to this the Body Corp indicated that they would not repair the damage done by their contractor's negligence and shoddy workmanship.
To add insult to injury, I have just received a notice from the Managing agent, acting on authority from the Body Corp, that they do not have record of permission being granted for this extended patio and that I should either have it removed or they will, at my cost?
My question is as follows:
1. I have no proof that this alteration was not given permission at the time, can I be held accountable for the changes more than 6 years after the fact?
2. Surely the Body Corp should be held accountable for the poor work conducted by their appointed contractor
Does anyone have suggestions on how to procede as I am at a loss?
Thanks

Replies

You must login to post a reply.

RE: Patio Extension

Clive Owens replied on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 at 06:10

Follow

RE: RE: Patio Extension

John Yates replied on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 at 08:06

The Managing Agent will require a Court Order to remove the Patio extention introduced without permission.

RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

Michele Ricketts replied on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 at 22:12

Thank you, Do you perhaps know Where can I find details on this?

RE: RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

John Yates replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 07:35

See Page 11-3 of Paddock's Sectional Title Survival Manual. Follows from Conduct Rule 4.

RE: RE: Patio Extension

Michele Ricketts replied on Thu, 08 Mar 2012 at 22:13

Thanks, but what does Follow mean?

RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

John Yates replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 07:39

Follow is the term addopted on STO to indicate that the person wishes to follow the series but does not have a comment to make now but may wish to make one later.

RE: RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

Michele Ricketts replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 14:33

Thanks :-) sorry new to this :-)

RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

John Yates replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 09:34

Follow as per my reply means that Conduct Rule 4 is applicable in this case.

RE: Patio Extension

Clive Owens replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 10:17

I should think that since the patio had been there for a number of years and also that the BC accepted and repaired it the first time without pointing out to you that it should not be there , common sense and law would rule in your favor . When you bought the managing agent must have issued a clearance certificate , which in turn is done by instruction from the trustees .
I stand to be corrected .

RE: RE: Patio Extension

John Yates replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 10:45

Unfortunately "Common Sense" does not always prevail in cases such as this. If a Court Order is sought by the trustees for the Body Corporate the owner concerned would have an opportunity to put an opposing plea for consideration by the Court before the order is granted. Would suggest that an Attorney is consulted for a legal opinion on this matter and when all the aspects can be considered.

RE: RE: RE: Patio Extension

Michele Ricketts replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 14:34

Thanks John, your input is most valuable :-)

RE: RE: Patio Extension

Michele Ricketts replied on Fri, 09 Mar 2012 at 16:14

Thanks Robert, will investigate further :-)

1
Advertisements
Banner
Website Statistics
  • Forum Topics: 11683
  • Users: 21199