Body corporate balconies cause a surprising amount of drama. This Melbourne waterproofing website reports:
A recent insurance survey has shown that “Balcony Waterproofing” has the highest failure rate of all areas in the building envelope.
As you’ll see below there are many common ways in which balconies fail. This article will explore the issues that arise with balconies and who is responsible for rectification.
Please do note that balconies and their components are complex. Much of what I’m discussing is a simplified overview to give some direction and its entirely possible I’ll say something that’s too simplistic or even misleading. In all situations you’ll need to check with your building professional.
So … Is It Common Property or Part of the Lot?
A balcony has several key components:
- the balustrade
- surface tiling (or other material)
- waterproof membrane
- the concrete slab
The balustrade is the exterior boundary of the building therefore is common property and body corporate responsibility.
NOTE: If the balustrade looks out over an exclusive use area it is not considered on the boundary of common property and will be lot owner responsibility. Thanks to Michael for the tip!
The surface tiling is wholly contained within the lot and is lot owner responsibility.
Waterproof membranes are also contained within the lot. However, Regulations require the body corporate to maintain in good order roofing membranes that are not common property but that provide protection for lots and / or common property. That includes balcony waterproof membranes.
The boundaries of the lot are half way between the walls, floor, ceilings and doors, meaning midway in the concrete slab two lots, or a lot and common property meet. When infrastructure serves two or more lots it is common property and body corporate responsibility.
Doors or Windows onto a Balcony
In majority of cases the balcony is part of the lot.
The doors that access the balcony are wholly contained within the lot and are lot owner responsibility.
Any windows from the lot onto the balcony are also lot owner responsibility.
Occasionally balconies are allocated as exclusive use. Refer to your by-laws for the terms of the exclusive use allocations.
If the area is exclusive use it usually, subject to the terms of the allocation, comes down to a question of what is “maintenance” and what is a “structural”.
The Most Common Issues With Body Corporate Balconies
A well maintained concrete balcony should last for 40 – 50 years.
Other than “well maintained” there are other underlying assumptions including:
- The balcony was well designed in the first place with good drainage.
- The balcony and all it’s components were well constructed.
- Good quality and location appropriate materials were used in construction.
Sadly, body corporate balconies often fail to meet those basic assumptions.
Water Leaks
The most common issue with body corporate balconies is, by far, water ingress. From the same Melbourne waterproofing site above:
1.8% of the total construction cost is spent on waterproofing membranes for balcony areas, and yet leaking balconies account for a staggering 83% of building defect complaints.
Water leaks from a balcony can be into the lot or common property below or beside or into the subject lot.
Adequate drainage is the first issue that should be checked. An incorrect fall (resulting from poor design or construction) can funnel water directly into the lot or away from the appropriate drains.
Water pooling in also indicates poor draining.
Leaks to the lot below are, usually, indicators of a failure of the waterproof membrane.
There are lots of reasons membranes fail but poor workmanship accounts for up to 90% of failures. That can be everything from the slab being too wet to bond with the membrane, poor preparation of the surface, poor application of the membrane or subsequent tearing of the membrane when tiles are added or afterwards.
I’ve seen three building where waterproof membranes where simply never applied to balconies.
Leaks into the lot are more problematic since the failure may be the windows and doors rather than the balconies themselves. Or, as is often the case, the leaks have multiple causes.
If you have water ingress issues from your balcony have your own sliding doors checked first. If that proves not to be the cause of ingress then report the matter to your body corporate.
If you have water ingress from the lot above or common property report straight to the body corporate.
Cracked or “Drummy” tiles
Tiles are laid over the waterproof membrane to which they bond providing protection for the membrane which itself stops water leaking into the lot below and protects the slab.
Sometimes expansion joints are inadequate and the tiles push against each other as the slab moves. When that happens the tiles can become de-bonded from the membrane and lift becoming “drummy”, named because of the hollow drumming sound they make with struck with something heavy.
Read more about lifting or drummy tiles here.
Cracked tiles are, usually, the result of some sort of impact though it is possible that underlying issues can cause tiles to move and crack.
Cracked or lifted tiles need to be repaired as soon as possible. Movement of the tiles can tear the waterproof membrane. Even if the tiles come away cleanly it opens the way for water to penetrate to the membrane. It will have no way to drain away and can cause deterioration.
Repair of drummy or cracked tiles is lot owner responsibility.
If the cause of the problem comes from a structural issue such as concrete spalling the repair will be the body corporate responsibility.
See below a discussion re who is responsible for tiles when the works are body corporate responsibility.
Deterioration of the Balustrade or Fittings
Balustrades are made of all sorts of materials such as concrete, steel, wood or glass. They’re also fixed to the slab by either cementing in place or a complex arrangement of bolts.
All the materials are open to the elements and erosion or other deterioration will happen.
Regular maintenance is crucial. Concrete and steel balustrades should be painted regularly as painting seals the structure and prevents rust. Wooden balustrades, usually part of a wooden balcony, need to be treated regularly and inspected for evidence of wood rot and / or timber pests. Glass balustrades need to be cleaned and inspected regularly.
The most common balustrade issue is a breakdown of the connection to the slab. If bolts are used they can rust weakening the structure.
When Balustrades No Longer Meet Australian Standards
Balustrades, like all building items, are subject to Australian Standards. Australian Standards are made more rigid, reasonably often, certainly more often than balcony balustrades are changed.
The changes to the Standards are not retroactive so if a non-compliant balustrade remains in good order then it’s a not an issue. The balustrade may be maintained, indefinitely.
There comes a point however when maintenance becomes a repair. Balustrades that are not compliant with Australian Standards may not be repaired.
It is common for a strata scheme with balustrade issues to find that replacement is their only option.
Concrete Cancer
Concrete cancer, or more correctly concrete spalling, is common in coastal areas.
Unchecked concrete spalling will destroy a building. The Iluka building, a Surfers Paradise icon built in the 1970’s, was demolished in 2013 because it had become structurally unsound due to spalling.
For most buildings concrete cancer is a treatable problem.
Regular painting is crucial. The paint seals the concrete against moisture penetration. Painting goes hand in hand with inspection of the building and, if identified, repair of any spalling.
Balconies are checked and painted regularly in concrete buildings as part of their regular maintenance.
Brick buildings by contrast don’t need regular painting and balcony slabs are sometimes overlooked. The exposed concrete slab for the balcony should still be both inspected, painted and repaired if necessary.
Waterproofing Works To Body Corporate Balconies
The body corporate is responsible for maintaining the waterproof membrane in a good condition. The owner is responsible for the tiles on top of that membrane.
So what happens when the tiles need to be removed to address an issue with the membrane?
A lot will depend on the condition of tiles and the reasons the membrane needs addressing.
If the membrane is leaking but the tiles on top of the membrane are in good condition then the body corporate is responsible for the cost of removing the tiles, rectifying the membrane and relaying similar tiles. If the lot owner would like upgraded tiles they may pay the extra cost.
If the condition of the tiles is poor things are less clear. An order has been made that the lot owner is responsible for the cost to purchase and re-lay the tiles, notwithstanding the waterproofing works are necessary, because the condition of the current tiles was poor.
In this Blue Lagoon decision a lot owner sought reimbursement for tiling works as the water was pooling under the tiles, allegedly causing the tiles to lift and crack. The application was dismissed for several reasons including that the works had already begun prior to communication with the body corporate about possible problems. As the scheme had no way to check validity of the claims the owner’s application for reimbursement was dismissed.
Renovating a Balcony
Making changes to your balcony is something that should be discussed with the body corporate prior to any works being undertaken. Tiles that have been laid well bond with the waterproof membrane below and removing them without damage is a challenge.
A conversation at the beginning might avoid drama later.
Conclusion
This article is intended as an overview of the body corporate balconies, where they go wrong and who is responsible for fixing what.
It is a complex subject, both in terms of the physical make up of a balcony and determining where fault and financial liability lie.
Persistence, communication and reliable building professionals are key to smooth resolution of issues.
Unless stated otherwise all the information on this website relates to Queensland legislation.
In QLD it can be even more convoluted. If the balustrade overlooks your exclusive use area then it becomes the lot owners responsibility according to BCCM.
I live in a complex of 12, 2 story townhouses. 5 have balconies overlooking their exclusive use area and 2 overlooking common area. The 2 are maintained by the body corp and the 5 by the owners.
Michael
Hi Michael
Good tip! Thanks for sharing.
I knew the doors and windows onto the balcony would be lot owner responsibility if the balcony was exclusive use area but didn’t know that could be extended to balustrades. Makes sense.
In our QLD scheme all doors and windows are bodycorp responsibility.
Lisa,
Thanks for your articles – they are very helpful and informative.
We always advise our members to keep the communication with the body corporate open, updated and informative. Proactive attitude of owners in advising body corporate in writing about any problems as soon as they happen, preferably with evidence such as pictures, and keeping a log of the dates, pictures, videos etc. for future reference helps immensely if the repair / maintenance issues are to be addressed fairly and equitably.
It is also important that the owners understand the value of maintenance and understand that sinking fund needs to be maintained in sufficient levels to address any issues in timely manner.
Jana Koutova, Executive Officer, Unit Owners Association of Queensland Inc.
Hi Jana
Good advice re keeping a log! Excellent idea.
Also good point about sinking funds. Simply identifying that its body corporate responsibility doesn’t automatically mean the works can proceed without a great deal of rejigging and planning.
Hi, Some questions resulting from your interesting article on balconies
You reference the windows & doors opening onto the balcony as part of the lot so lot owner’s responsibility
Q1 Aren’t the doors & windows part of the main “building structure”
Q2 What about the wall structure that supports windows & doors to balcony, surely part of the “building structure”
Q3. When building comes up fro repaint, are the walls referred to paid for by BC Repaint or are they back charged to lot owner?
Hi Ken
The door and windows opening onto the balcony are part of the lot.
If a door or a window share a boundary with common property then they are considered to be common property since it would be unfeasible to share the cost. So for instance, your front door opens onto the common property hallway so is considered common property and the body corporate must maintain. The internal doors open inside the unit and are lot owner responsibility.
Its the same with windows. If the window is into a part of the lot, which usually only happens on balconies, then the lot owner is responsible. If the window is in the boundary wall of the scheme then it is common property.
With repainting, yes, the wall repainted could be charged back to the owner, and sometimes is if the painting is required other than with the entirety of the building. Usually buildings are painted in one go so by funding the whole paint owners are in essence paying for their portion of the walls to be painted.
Q2 re the wall structure supports, windows and doors to balcony is a damn good question and I have no unequivocal answer for you. I agree the structure that surrounds the doors and windows is part of the building structure. Owners must maintain however. I expect it will come down to how much is a maintenance and repairs vs structural issues. Again however I don’t have a clear answer. If the situation arises I would certainly argue body corporate responsibility until shown otherwise.
Hello. I have been reading your publication for quite some time, and wonder why all of your articles apply to Building Format Plans? Would really appreciate some articles referring to Standard Format Plans please.
Hi Cheryl
95% of what I write relates to both standard format plan and building format plan. Its only a question of boundaries of common property.
In there something in particular you’d like to know more about? I’m always looking for ideas.
Hi Lisa
Our unit has a large uncovered balcony that is built above another lot’s garage. The tiles have not been laid well and there is possibly a poor (or no) waterproof membrane underneath.
During wet weather, our balcony is leaking water onto the garage below.
Can you please advise if this falls completely under us as lot owners, or will some fall under body corporate? Our balcony is private use.
Any help would be great!
Thanks
Matt & Emma
Hi Matt
Ooh, that doesn’t sound good.
If the area is exclusive use then it is lot owner responsibility unless you can prove that the issue is caused by failure to maintain by the body corporate. Its difficult to do with exclusive use as lot owners are required to maintain exclusive use areas.
If you haven’t spoken with the body corporate start by doing so. They may take responsibility.
If they’re already referred it to you get someone to have a look, estimate cause and costs to repair. Take it from there.
Thanks Lisa!
Hi Lisa,
My property was under Body Corporate and was insured through Starata Care, If the building or unit was part of “Standard Format Plan”, Is Body Corporate covers the building structures or not? Because they told me Body Corporate is not responsible for any maintenance related issues, but the cause of the problem started on breaking down of “waterproofing membrane” in the balcony and from some movement of the building which causing water leaks damaging the garage ceiling.
Hi Rosendo
If your scheme is part of a standard format plan then the boundaries between common property and the lot are measured by pegs in the ground. That means, referring to your plan of course, that the exterior of the structure is contained wholly within the lot. That means the building is your responsibility, the same as owning a house really.
If your lot is joint to another lot then the BCCM Act requires the body corporate to insure the property as a whole. This is so that no one owner is disadvantaged because those who’re they’re connected to don’t or won’t insure.
Insurance is one of the few things in the lot the body corporate will cover. Any damage caused to the inside of the lot, like water damage to walls or ceilings, will likely be covered under the body corporate insurance. You will need to pay the excess. The insurance company will most likely ask you to rectify the issues that are causing the water ingress first though.
If you have other questions please let me know.
Hi Lisa,
Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom via this site. As a first-time body corporate owner, it’s a lifeline.
I wonder whether you can shine some light on my current situation. I bought a unit in a body corporate in Queensland that has a balcony overlooking the private use area of me and of the adjoining property.
After heavy rains in summer, the underside of the balcony showed water damage (cracked paint etc), which the adjoining neighbour informed me was a problem that had been repaired (only months before I purchased the house as it turned out – lucky me) at great cost. There’s no water on the balcony, so the leak must be in the wall. The plumber was obtained by the body corporate, and the builder by the previous owner. I contacted the builder who completed this work, who informed me that he had been contracted to fix the damage but NOT the water leak, and it was apparent to him at the time that the plumbing workmanship was shoddy and that this problem would recur.
The body corporate have been uncooperative in providing me with the previous invoices, and almost four months later only gave me the name of the builder. Do I have the legal right to require the body corporate to pay for the water leak to be repaired, given that they paid for the original (shoddy) repair? If not, do I have any legal recourse regarding the poor workmanship at all? I feel frustrated, overwhelmed and bullied, and I’m grappling with understanding who is responsible for what. Any advice you can share would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Mina
I feel for you. I understand this is a difficult process, particularly when you’re dealing with several groups of people.
Can you get the body corporate to pay? I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. There’s a lot of factors going on here and not enough information to be clear.
I understand it can feel totally overwhelming to deal with the blank wall that strata is so often. Persistence is key here. There are a few ‘next steps’ you can take.
Firstly you need to establish whether the body corporate is responsible for fixing the leak. Good clues here will be why they fixed the problem in the first place. It could well be that whatever work they did exacerbated the situation and yes, definitely responsible for fixing. You need to get a hold of whatever information you can about the circumstances of the previous repair. A copy of the plan for your scheme would probably help as well.
The best place to get that is body corporate records. With some managers you’ll have access to the records via a portal. If you do, go through the records and have a look. Read some minutes. See if you can find 1) the resolution and 2) the invoice. Let me know if you need more help on this one.
Secondly, try and get the problem defined. Can you get a couple of tradespeople to give you some idea of what the issue is and, if possible, quotes to rectify.
If you know what the problem is, and who’s responsible, the next step will be to get it enforced.
I know its challenging Mina. Persistence is going to be important.
I have a balcony which has some poor design characteristics and allows water to pond, there is inadequate fall to the floor waste and as such water bathers and sits for a lengthy time causing mould and a slippery growth on the balcony, Question is: who is responsible for the repairs maintenance and rectification of this build/construction/design problem.
Hi Philip
The body corporate is responsible for maintaining common property. That doesn’t mean they’re responsible for fixing design issues.
There is a caveat to that. The body corporate does need to maintain the scheme in good working order.
So for instance, there was a case of a high rise where the wrong gutters were installed on a building, which, during a heavy rain event, caused said gutters to overflow causing significant damage both to the roof and the interiors of the lots. An insurance claim was made and denied because the damage was caused by a construction fault. The building warranty period had expired and the building was left in a position where it had to take action to repair the roof to make the building water tight.
The test to get the body corporate to rectify will be what damage is being done? If there is no damage only inconvenience then there is no responsibility to maintain.
Your other option might be to see whether there are still new building warranties and the matter can be referred to the developer/builder.
I have a question the toilet inside the premesis ,,is in poor condition ,I would like to replace a new one can I replace ,I will pay the cost ,,wanted to know if it ok. To do it,,
Clem
Hi Clem
Contact your body corporate manager and ask them. The contact details should be on your Notice of Contributions.
Just check the best way forward. You may be able to proceed without any further correspondence. Alternatively you may need to email committee to seek their approval. The Manager can let you know how your body corporate likes to work.
Hi Lisa,
Part of my balcony has just been found to be drummy – the slab, not the tiles – and may have to be torn up to check for beginnings of concrete cancer, which has been diagnosed in a unit further down in the block. Just to double check, the BC is responsible for the repair and reinstatement of the slab and the waterproofing, but not the tiling. Is that correct or have I misunderstood? And who is responsible for removing the existing tiles? This is in Qld btw.
Hi Rosey
Yes, the waterproofing and slab is body corporate responsibility as it services more than one lot. The tiles, as they service only one lot, are lot owner responsibility.
If the body corporate is undertaking works on the balcony because of a suspected issue with the slab, not an issue with the tiles, I would expect them to make good the tiles at their cost. Works to the tiles are only necessary because they’re doing what they’re doing, so they should pay reinstatement cost.
If there are issues with the tiles then it might be worth discussing with the body corporate to negotiate who will pay for what.
The BC is responsible for the membrane in a lot.
Membrane probably stops at the door/wall join. There is no design requirement for waterproofing under doors says QBCC (or walls?). Indeed, modern building practice allows slabs to be completely at the one level. No 75mm step up. Easy to lay the slab completely at the one level and rely on sikaflex for sealing.
If a leak affects the unit below then that is clear evidence meaning a BC requirement to fix a failed or no existent membrane.
If no indication of a leak into into the unit below, then membrane is not an issue and no requirement for BC to fix. No evidence of membrane failure.
But water leaks into that same unit adjacent to the tiled balcony under the door and under the walls which are within that lot. There could be an issue with the grout which is not maintained with sealer or was never sealed. Tile sealant only lasts 3 or so years in Qld climate/suns rays.
There is sikaflex sealant along the edge where tiles and grout meet a painted timber wall which sits directly on the slab. Possibly the tiles, being laid on the slab, have a surface 5-6 mm above the interior slab level. A design issue at build. Not noted by a certifier. Probably the membrane stops at the tile/wall/door join and is only placed under the tiles as normal practice.
Probably, moisture gets sucked along the grout (capillary action or wind pressure) and passes into the wall and the bottom timber plate and thence into the carpeted floor doing all sorts of hidden damage, rotting, decay, mildew.
Body corporate cannot access the lot to maintain the membrane. Any inspection of the tiles and grout would not show an issue. No complaint about water penetration into the slab of the unit below.
Lot owner to maintain doors and walls in the lot and also the tiles and grout. But to what extent?
Lot owner says BC responsibility to repair the leak (building integrity issues) .
BC says owner should have maintained the grout by sealing the tile/grout surface (common sense but owners wont spend the money). Anyway, it is a build design issue.
Note, QBCC builders warranty expired. It takes a number of years for design issues to become evident through rotting timber base plate or rotting carpets or underlay or timber strips or gyprok.
Where does the repair cost lie, BC or Owner?
Or is this design issue not yet determined as to responsibility and requires adjudication.
Hi D
What you’ve described is a complex issue and it appears unclear where the fault actually lies.
As you’ve said the lot owner is responsible for maintaining the grout as its part of the tiling. The body corporate is responsible for the waterproof membrane whether its correctly laid or not.
The body corporate is not responsible for rectifying design faults, however they are responsible for keeping the common property in a safe and working condition.
The key here is going to be what is causing the problem, or combination of problems. It is unclear so I suggest it would be a good case for Adjudication.
A
Thank you for your reply and interest.
The membrane is not to protect that unit from leaks but the unit/s below. A complete membrane across all the slab would protect the unit below from all leaks even pipes, washers and showers but that unit would be a sea of water, no protection at all. Evidence of a functioning membrane is seen by lack of leaks IN THE UNIT BELOW and might well be most of the evidence needed, if not all. The key here is the flat slab and lack of waterproofing in the door and walls which seem to be a design/construction fault. A well informed insurance company would use that to deny liability,, i would think. A lack of maintenance by the BC is difficult to prove where the balcony is exclusive use and not common property. But what maintenance is necessary given design issues. Up to the owner to rectify as he owns the lot. No owner is aware that maintenance includes tile and grout sealing. But that is more common sense on the owners part. However, owners presume an existence of ‘building integrity’ and the BC is responsible for that.
So it would seem the best a BC could do would be to refer the aggrieved owner to an adjudicator to see how the issue would be decided. Gives the bldg a bad name and facilitates lower sale prices, i suspect, as being the only outcome here. I now await QBCC advice.
Hello D Parker,
i live in an apartment with a similar balcony water leakage problem to yours, Could i contact you by telephone to get some of your ideas/suggestions, please. my mobile is 0418 791341
thanks, regards
Luigi
Where do I go?
A lot owner with exclusive use (and an exclusive use by not to make improvements without BC approval) on a Common Area podium slab changed a pool-type fence to a more imposing solid wooden fence.
The BC commenced actions to stop this happening but a Dispute was lodged against the BC for taking action.
The adjudicator dismissed her applucation and Concluded that the owner submit an application to BC for consideration and if it was not approved it was to be removed, or an Order to remove it could be sort from them.
In the meantime, a Cadastral Survey was conducted to identify the measurements of the exclusive use area and it wad found that approx half of the podium and the wooden fence was Common Area and not exclusive use.
The owner has removed half of the fence and her items from the Common Area, but some of her items still encroach on Common Area property.
She is refusing to co-operate with the BC to remove the rest of the fence and move her items within the exclusive use area to build a fence as approved by the BC.
Do we have to now start over and Breach the owner or is there something else we could do?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Graeme
If the lot owner has complied with the previous breach notice then I’d say you have to start over.
The question is, has she complied with the previous breach notice. The application she lodged was dismissed. The adjudicator said seek approval and, if not granted, remove. The business with the Surveyor doesn’t impact whether or not the fence can be erected and doesn’t impact the initial objection of committee. It only affects boundaries. Ignore the twist about boundaries and review the Order.
Bearing in mind I’m not an Adjudicator so might be missing some crucial legal element that the whole thing turns on. It seems to me though that if the owner hasn’t applied for permission to erect the fence then the body corporate can seek an order it be removed. The original objection was not to remove from common property, but removed altogether, including from the exclusive use area.
The question there will be “is the body corporate acting reasonably not allowing the wooden fence on exclusive use area?”
If you have any doubts I suggest you start over. Adjudicators are sticklers for process so it can’t hurt ticking the boxes again.
HI i was just reading the above post regarding a fence what happened with us is we have a back fence which is all common property which is boundary with a council causeway. the fence was damaged by vandals and instead of seeking body corp approval to fix the 7 broken fence rails which would of only cost about $14 plus labour and nails instead when and doubled up the whole fence to reinforce it which used around 230 fence pails at around $450 plus labour and materials for a total of $1400 s all this was done with out obtaining quotes and with out permission the claimed it was an emergency so that they could avoid getting permission by the body corp i argued that it was not an emergency cause some of the broken fence was left in that state for over 3 months without repairs before the latest repair also the fence and gate at the opposite end of the property are left wide open so anyone can walk in anyway. They held a committee meeting so that the folks that erected the fence can get away with putting it up because they said it was an emergency. Can they actually do this? How can a committee agree to something that was not an emergency and was most likely an improvement seeing how they didn’t just fix the broken timber but instead doubled over the existing fence.
Hi Grahame
Lets see … unnecessary repairs, bodgy reasoning, scrambling to cover their ass. Sounds like a body corporate to me. Or possibly the government.
Yes bodies corporate can do whatever they like, so long as its legal, they don’t breach any legislation and their actions are “reasonable”. What qualifies as reasonable is the stuff of disputes.
People get away with this stuff because the only people who can complain are the other lot owners and the complaints process is long and arduous. Its also frankly hardly worth the effort for $1,400 unless you personally have to pay it or you’re really annoyed.
I occupy a ground level apartment which was constructed in approximately 1998. On my balcony roof. directly outside of my kitchen window there are clumps of matter (looks liked dried plaster) that is dripping from a patch on the ceiling which is concrete. I am guessing this is as a result of water retention from the upstairs balcony? Just wondering who is responsible?
Hi Linda
It will depend if the area is common property or part of a lot. It part of a lot then it’s that lot owner’s responsibility. If common property then body corporate.
You’d need to find out where the leak is coming from.
Hello Lisa
I live in a ground floor apartment. I have a tiled terrace which runs the length of my Lot and is surrounded on 3 sides with an ungated railing. The railing is located on the boundary between my Lot and the Common property garden. The railings on all Lots in the high rise building are being replaced as they are not up to code for balustrade height and they are also materially unsound.
I would like to know whether the railing on my ground floor Lot would be classified as a “fence” or a “balustrade”. The correct definition of the railing will determine who is responsible for the repair and replacement – either the Body Corporate for the total amount (if it is deemed to be a ‘balustrade’), or the Body Corporate sharing the cost with me (if it is deemed to be a ‘fence’).
A balustrade is generally defined as serving the purpose of preventing falls and must be installed in situations where the fall would be at least one meter. My ground floor apartment is at ground level therefore the railing appears not technically to be a balustrade.
If the railing is not a “balustrade” then it would be a “fence” and the Neighbourhood Disputes (Dividing Fences and Trees) Act 2011 would apply.
I personally would prefer the railing to be classified as a ‘fence’ as the railing could then be shorter than the height mandated under the Building Code for a balustrade, and could very well be cheaper. I may also be able to request a gate in the ‘fence’ which would allow access to the common property garden from my terrace.
I look forward to your assessment of the classification of the railing at my ground floor Lot.
Hi Bella
I wish I could give you a definitive answer on this one but it is a question for an Adjudicator.
You don’t actually have a dispute to bring before an Adjudicator though. Discuss the matter with your body corporate and ask what they think. Let them know what you think. They may have a different take on the matter depending on safety legislation or other acts.
They’re likely just as happy to avoid further costs on an already expensive project like replacing balustrades. I’d start by asking if they plan to change the balustrade. They may not and its quite possible you don’t need to do anything at all.
Hi Bella
Wouldn’t you know it, someone asked the same question in the Flat Chat forum here.
The information re Owners Corporate relates to NSW however the balustrade information will be nationwide.
Hi Lisa
I am interested in your statement re “The balustrade is the exterior boundary of the building therefore is common property and body corporate responsibility”.
Just outside my balustrade on the outer edge of the cement slab is a tiled area (100 mm wide) where the tiles are popping off due to two thin rusting metal strips under the tiles (all balconies on my level are affected) and tiles are dropping off the edge. This row of tiles sits slightly higher than the balcony tiles within the balustrade presumably to guide water to two exit points. As these tiles are outside the balustrade I would assume that these are common property and should be maintained/repaired by Body Corporate. Is this correct?
Hi Annette
The balustrade does mark the boundary of the lot and common property and is body corporate responsibility. Its not a hard and fast boundary whereby everything beyond that boundary is body corporate responsibility and that’s that. Its common property because it is the boundary between the unit and the common property, in this case the exterior skin of the scheme.
It seems to me what you’re describing is a continuation of the tiling of your lot (lot owner responsibility) onto the exterior of the building. Of course writing about it is imprecise and I can’t clearly picture what you mean. I have a lot of questions about this: Who added the tiles? Are they on every floor? has the body corporate maintained/replaced them before? All sorts of things get added to buildings to try and address various situations making responsibility a confusing mess to work out.
The best I can tell you Annette is that it is possibly body corporate responsibility. Tiling is usually lot owner responsibility but there are too many variables here to say definitively one way or the other.
I suggest discussing it with your body corporate manager and or committee. Also consider discussing with your other owners. There may already be a precedent in your building about how they are to be treated. Asking is the best place to start.
Thanks Lisa. I have already approached the Body Corp and they have stated that the area between the balcony and the face of the complex is not common property.
The complex has three levels. Works have been approved to repair the outer balconies of level 1 and 2. These upper balconies adjoin roof lines (as there have been a number of failures at the interface of the roof lines and the balconies). As the ground floor does not have an adjoining roof line and water ingress issues, repairs were not approved.
The ground floor has different issues. Although the ground floor doesn’t have known leaking issues into the next level – the car park, the outer row of tiles have completely lifted from the edge of the building and some have fallen to common property 15 metres below. The tiles are literally sitting there with no adhesion to the balcony. These tiles serve a different purpose to the other tiles on the remainder of the balcony in that they direct water out at 2 specific points so they act as a drain.
The whole ground level is affected even though the building is only about 10 years old. These are the original tiles laid when the complex was built – no-one on my level has had them repaired. I am the first to raise this as an issue as I am concerned that someone may be below when the next tile drops. I have removed the whole row from the outer edge on my balcony for this reason. I look forward to your response.
Hi Annette
Do you disagree with the ruling the area is not common property? And if so why?
I’m not asking to find out but to get you think about what it is you’re wanting to have happen here. If you truly believe the matter should be common property and the body corporate should fix it then by all means take the matter further.
To seek an Adjudicators Order you will need to demonstrate there is a dispute and you have tried to resolve it. If you’ve formally asked the body corporate to rectify and they have not then that may qualify. Talk to the Commission Body Corporate Office and see what they say.
Tiling is usually lot owner responsibility however the reason the tiles need work will be a factor. So for instance, if the tiles (lot owner responsibility) on a balcony needed replacing because of an underlying issue with the membrane (body corporate responsibility) then the body corporate would be responsible for pulling up and replacing the tiles.
Determining whether the area is common property will be a matter of whether it services one lot or more.
Have a think about what you want to have happen. Build your case. If you think it has merits then explore the option of taking things further. Discuss with dispute resolution service to see if they agree with you.
Hi
I’m seeking clarification regarding Qld BC, we have had an a safety inspection on our premises consisting of 6 units and the front doors to 5 units (1 unit ground level with a glass sliding door) regarding fire approved front doors. Our complex was built 1982 and I thought it was regulation all doors are of fire standard? It has been suggested the cost of each front door be the cost of the body Corporate? I did read a post earlier stating if the door opens into common area it’s a BC maintenance. I thought the principle applied as the front door is recessed back from the common area and inside the boundary point of the unit it’s a cost to the owner? Eg I have a screen door aswell the opens onto common area does that mean the BC are to replace it aswell if it’s worn or broken. My front door is in perfect working order, so if they are replaced who re-installs all the deadlocks to the new front door please.
Hi Anita
If the body corporate is a building format plan, which most apartment buildings are, then yes the fire doors are body corporate responsibility.
If you have a screen door and other lots don’t then its quite probable the door was added by a lot owner. There should be an approval given and most are made subject to conditions including that the lot owner is responsible for maintenance. Its likely an improvement that has been added at lot owner expense. I would expect all units to have a screen otherwise.
The body corporate is responsible for making sure the building is fire safe, including having a fire safety door on each lot. I presume your doors are not compliant which is why they’re talking about changing though still working fine. Any works to the door are only done as the body corporate needs to discharge their duty of care therefore they will be responsible for returning the door to its current condition fitting deadlocks etc. If the deadlock needs to be changed, because it won’t work with the new door, then I would expect that to be a lot owner expense as the cost is for a specific unit only, though the body corporate may foot that cost too.
Hi Lisa
Thank you for you information, very helpful. Yes our apartment doors need to be replaced and the locks returned need to meet fire approval. My other question. As our unit doors s open onto common area, would you know if the doors that are located on building entry’s are a similar rule. Eg we have 3 doors (1 door to a seperate set of common stairwell that attaches to the end of the complex and is used by tenants to access their unit) the other 2 doors are to the main building, again a stairwell. We have no lifts, the stairwells are the only fire exit. We have been informed the 3 doors do not need to be fire proofed? We have no fire sprinklers or water house in the stairwells either and as the building is 1982 we not required.
Hi Anita
You’d need to get the doors inspected by a fire safety inspector. I think they do need to be fire safe but best to check with an expert.
Hi again Lisa,
Thanks for your last reply – it was very helpful. Another question: Is it a conflict of interest having the building manager (who has just recently become an owner) elected as the chair of the BC? Is it common for complexes to have one person serve in both positions?
Regards,
Hi Rosey
Committees are made up of 3 – 7 elected lot owners plus (potentially) 2 other non-voting members, the Caretaker and the Body Corporate Manager. They hold a position on the committee and should attend and input at meetings but they cannot vote.
If the person is a body corporate manager, a service contractor or letting agent, or an associate of those bodies, they are ineligible to be elected to committee. It is indeed a conflict of interest. It doesn’t matter whether they’re a lot owner, they’re excluded because of appointed position they hold.
Hello I own an investment property in Melbourne in a block of about 40 units,it is a ground floor unit with a rear facing courtyard ,the block is about 10 years old ,for the last 5-6 years I have had a persistent water leak, water is leaking from the out side tiled floor (my responsibility) area through the render and concrete wall and into the bedrooms ruining the carpets, it appears the outside tiled area is higher than the inside floor, this would be the cause of the water entering the unit, I have had some tiles around the wall area removed and new membrane applied and tiles replaced to no avail. The body corporate knows of this issue but are still adamant its my responsibility .What I would like to know is this covered by some kind of insurance ie the building does not meet building standards etc,the tenants have vacated probably due to this ongoing drama.Thanks.
Hi Ken
It sounds like a building defect issue. Has the matter ever been referred to the Builder? The warranty period has expired however if the matter has been reported to them and they’ve attempted to address, then there may still be some form of warranty required.
Insurance does not cover building defect issues. It will be up to you to rectify. The insurance will likely cover rectification of the damage caused but most insurers will expect you to have rectified the cause first.
Otherwise, the tiled areas of the balcony are your responsibility, though the waterproofing membrane underneath is body corporate responsibility. The problem is not with the membrane though, but apparently the tiles, which puts the issue back in your hands.
Hi I live in a townhouse that is under a building format plan. The doorframe on my front door is rotting from wear and tear and exposure to the elements. It needs replacing.
The front door opens out onto a small entry path which is exclusive use. Can you please let me know if my front door and door frame is lot owner or BC responsibility. Thanks.
Hi Penn
In these situations its always best to discuss with your strata manager/committee.
I think that doors or windows onto an exclusive use area are lot owner responsibility. I’ve seen an order regarding windows and another about balconies where an Adjudicator ruled that way, so likely doors as well.
You should still discuss with your strata manager/committee. Pose the same question. They may disagree with me and fix it for you. There may be other issues going on in the scheme. Your doors may be fire doors and have special requirements. Or its a common problem in lots that the body corporate is looking into. What I’m trying to say is there could be some help there for you, even if its only introduction to a contractor who could do the work. The worst that will happen is they’ll tell you to go fix it yourself.
Hi, Lisa
We’ve been through a very uncomfortable situation with our body corporate recently.
As our unit’s balcony is entirely exposed to a busy street, we’ve put on a 1.5m high bamboo screen from bunnings tied with balconies’ handrails just to keep some privacy.
And one week later, we received an email from our rental agency said Body corporate require us to remove them immediately, otherwise they can breach us.
Because our balcony connects our lounge area, this means without any sort of blinds or screenings, everyone walking on the street have the completely view on our entire lounge area plus Kitchen, don’t mention at night time with our lights on.
Since our body corporate leave us no room to negotiate at all, is there any options for us to protect our privacy or at least get our voice to be heard? We are really frustrated now
Appreciate for any advices!
Hi Eden
That sounds terrible. Unfortunately the body corporate by-laws will likely be very clear that nothing like that can be put onto the balconies. It disrupts the appearance of the scheme.
Getting this fixed is going to require some cooperation from your rental agency and owner. What you need is for the body corporate to create some sort of barrier that gives you some privacy. Maybe a shrub or tree, or even some sort of screen, located on the common property between your unit and the road.
I’d suggest talking to your onsite manager, if you have one, and seeing how amenable they are to helping out. Then it will be a question of making a formal request to the committee who hopefully then will take some action.
Failing that the owners can submit a motion to general meeting asking other owners to approve the installation of some form of screen.
Hello Lisa, on a similar issue to this regarding “visual amenity”. My lot has no separation other than a 60 cm high empty Fish Pond between my balcony and my neighbours. My cat therefore can wander onto from my balcony onto my neighbours. She complained about that meaning I cannot leave my door to the apartment open. I put up a 1m high trellis with creepers on my side to which she has objected on visual grounds. Balcony’s require a 1m high balustrade to prevent falls which I have on the other two sides which my cat does not attempt to climb. But I can’t find out if there is any requirement to have a balustrade (or other effective separator) between the two adjoining balconys.
Hi Andrea
This is a tricky one. I’d take the fact your scheme was approved with a fish pond separator between lots that its compliant, or at least was when your scheme was registered.
I think the bigger question is how much are you required to accommodate your neighbour? If the trellis worked to block your cat off I doubt that you’re required to provide “visual amenity” to your neighbour. I live in a suburb and I’m not required to check that what I put on my lot is not hindering my neighbours view. Its my lot, I can do as I please. The same applies to you, though you do have by-laws that you need to comply with.
Check with the body corporate if the trellis is OK. You could also just discuss the matter with your neighbour explaining that you need something to keep your cat in. Maybe you can reach a consensus that works for both of you, a better solution by far.
Hi Lisa, I see you are in Queensland and I have a strata unit in WA, are the Strata Laws different here?
Our complex was built 30 years ago and now the balustrade in not compliant because of a 22 cm gap from the balcony floor to the bottom of the glass balustrade. also the bolts at the bottom plates are rusting and the balustrade is loose. Is it correct that the balustrade in this case it cannot be repaired only replaced. Also the balcony where the balustrade is has the exclusive use of the occupier, so who is responsible? unit owner or strata company?
Hi Alan
Yes the legislation is different QLD to WA.
The balustrade will need to be changed to meet Australian Standards if significant repairs are required, assuming it was compliant when built. I don’t know what qualifies as “significant”. The best person to ask would be a local repairer.
In QLD the body corporate is responsible for balustrades.
Hello Lisa
….i’m in Victoria.
Can you offer advice or point me in right direction regarding
Private balcony – water proof membrane replacement – who should pay please ?
The water has leaked into the apartment below and into mine.
Thank you
Hi Youla
I can only comment about QLD. Here the waterproof membrane between balconies is a body corporate responsibility.
Unless the damage to the membrane is caused by actions of the owner who has the leak. So for instance, tiles on the balconies are lot owner responsibility. If the owner pulls up the tiles and disturbs the membrane beneath they will be liable for rectification. That’s one of hundreds of possible scenarios.
Report to your committee and see what they say.
Thank you Lisa.
Your knowledge is superb. I was hoping it would extend to VIC.
My body corporate want me to pay for all the repairs inc membrane. They’ve focused on lot subdivision on defining repair responsibility.
So hoping there was a “Lisa” for Victoria.
Thanks again.
Hi Youla
Put your question on the Flat-Chat forum.
It is mostly NSW but they may have VIC experts on there who can give you good advice for free.
Thanks again
Good Morning,
I have just woken up to lifting tiles on my balcony. Looking at the above this may be my responsibility as owner to pay and fix. Unless it is a result of structural or membrane damage.
My question would be do i contact the onsite manager and bring it to there attention first? I don’t want to touch the tiles just in case it damages the membrane.
What if there is no membrane under the tile?
What if the onsite manager lifts the tiles and that causes damage to the membrane?
Who should i inform about this?
Hi Mathew
Good question.
I suggest its worth having an experienced contractor look at the tiles and give you an idea of what the issue is. Tiles lift for many reasons, including problems with the laying or simply movement of the building. It can also be issues with the membrane.
I would likely start with the onsite manager. If it is the membrane there may be other units with similar problems and the onsite manager is the person who is most likely to know about it. They can get you up to speed with what’s happening in the wider scheme if there are issues. They can also report back to the committee, though, if it is a membrane issue you should also do that directly yourself in writing, asking them to fix the issue.
Equally the onsite manager may be able to inspect and offer advice, or, alternatively, give you contact details of an approved contractor.
The best place to start is to find out what’s happening with your balcony. If you know the cause you can define who’s responsible.
I know I am reasponsible for my balcony door and window according to plans
. They recently became stuck and distorted.
A Structual Engineer attended and reported .
The concrete slab has sagged and window and door frames have buckled under applied compression.
So is this my cost or BC cost to replace ?
Thank you
Vickie
Hi Vickie
This is a complicated question and depends on who is responsible for the concrete slab. That will depend on the type of plan (BFP or SFP) and boundaries of common property. If you’re responsible for the whole building, as in a SFP, then the issue is yours.
If you’re in a BFP, say in an apartment building, then the body corporate is responsible for rectification the slab. In that case I’d say you have a good shot at insisting they fix the door and windows as well as the problem only arose because of a defect in the slab.
Thank you .
Its BFP .
The Engineers report states
Distortion/Compression issues with window and doors due to “age related plastic sag” to the concrete floor slab.
I did approach our Strata management office initally , and was told it was my problem to repair.
I disagree as I have done everything required to maintain this area over the past 17 years.
Who do I approach next ?
Hi Vickie
Plastic sag? I’m not sure what that is. The age-related part does make it sound like the issue might be something less than structural and more maintenance. What are the quotes or recommendations for repair?
If it is something that happens over time, rather than a defect the body corporate would be right, it is lot owner responsibility.
Deciding will mean reviewing all the information and making a decision. If you and the committee disagree you can seek conciliation or adjudication. In the case of conciliation you discuss with a committee representative and a mediator to try and reach a consensus. If you just want a decision then an Adjudicator can be appointed and they review and decide. Beware if you go the Adjudication route the body corporate may appoint a Solicitor to act and if you loose you could end up paying costs.
Talk with the Office Commissioner Body Corporate about making an application.
If you haven’t already seek quotes for the rectification works first.
Thank you Lisa
Will move forward with it now.
Lisa
I own a unit in Sydney. I have an exclusive use of my balcony which every unit has and it is part of the external feature of the apartment. The balustrade of the balcony is made of bricks and some of the top layers (coping bricks) become loose as the cement mortar is no longer bonds the top bricks. I informed the strata manager about this in order for the BC to carry out repairs. Is it correct for the strata manager to say since the balcony is for exclusive use, therefore the cement mortar repair is the owner’s lot responsibility?
Another question is my up stair neighbor often dust her blankets and other sheeting over her balcony and those dusts will fly into my unit just below. She will also water her pot plants sitting on top of the balcony excessively and the water will drip profusely into my balcony.
How can I resolve this issue and if there are any strata laws on this prohibition? I do not want the cause big quarrel and enmity if I do not handle the issue with care.
Hi Kim
I’m in Queensland and the legislation is quite different here. You could pose your question on the Flat Chat Forum. They are situated in NSW and will have experts that can help you.
I would complain about the watering and blankets … refer to your by-laws. It might be specifically forbidden.
Hello, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge on such a topical issue for unit owners.
Like to ask a question please. I live in QLD in a complex, have a large balcony on ground floor which has had 25 tiles heavily cracked. The crack follows the same line through all tiles.
Tiles were ripped up by body corprate and the crack below was very apparent. Engineer assessed it and said it was the tile bedding expanding/shinking – causing the tiles to crack. Also tiles were porous with water ingressing. Reckommended installing decent expansion joints at either end of crack and filling the crack.
BC found the ‘closest possible match’ of tile in Australia which is not the same – not same colour, thickness. Tiler also wants to cut each square tile diagonally as an additional expansion joint. I halted works. Now have BC saying they’ll only replace the tiles affected with the ‘solution’ tile. I want new matching tiles.
I ok’d them replacing the tiles originally, but when I saw the tile they referred to, and that they would be cut I stopped it. Also it seems to me the crack line will continue through other tiles unless a decent expansion joint is installed over whole balcony.
Note there are over 15 balconies affected like mine.
Am I being unreasonable saying I want all my tiles matching ie all new tiles, since they ripped them up? And I think the membrane should be fixed properly to stop other cracks developing?
Pasted copy of engineers report for my balcony below.
Findings and recommendations
No cracking was found in the basement car park relative to the
cracking on the podium.
It was found that prior to laying the tiles, a 30-40mm bed was laid on
top of the podium to create both levels and falls in the balcony.
The cracking is in the bedding, is not structural and is caused from
expansion and contraction stresses in the tiling and bedding or possibly
even shrinkage.
Recommend in this particular case to fill the crack with a bonding
agent or epoxy but ensuring that the expansion joints are properly
engaged either side of this area to absorb the stresses.
The calcification leeching through the bedding on the outside edge is
indicative of the terracotta tiles becoming porous and allowing
moisture through to the bedding then through the bedding to the
concrete and finding its way to the outer edge.
It is highly recommended because of the porous nature of the tiles to
install a recommended waterproofing sealant on top of the tiles to
avoid any further ingress under the bedding.
Thank you so much in advance!!!!!
Jeff
Hi Jeff
This is a complex situation and I recommend you talk to a Solicitor. You need to negotiate a solution with your body corporate and, if not successful, you may need to seek Conciliation or Adjudication. A Solicitor will be a big help in this case.
I don’t believe its unreasonable to want matching tiles across the balcony. What I gather from your message, only some of the tiles are being replaced with new tiles, the balance of the balcony being re-tiled with old tiles. It’s fair enough the body corporate can’t find matching tiles. Patterns and tiles are discontinued all the time. From the body corporate’s perspective replacing all the tiles because some have been damaged is not a good use of funds. And their responsibility is like for like, not like for new.
Can you not pay the balance to purchase the extra tiles you want? The body corporate can pay for the tiles they need to replace. It will make no difference what tile is being laid by the contractors, but the end result for you will be a lot better. Have a think about it and then negotiate with your body corporate.
It sounds like you want them to undertake works to the membrane so the tiles won’t need to be cut. If you object to the solution the body corporate is proposing you can seek Conciliation and, if you can’t agree, Adjudication. Think of it like this: is my reasoning for wanting a different solution to the issue enough to sway an Adjudicator to rule in my favour. Is your case strong? What is the body corporate’s case? If there are 15 other balconies to repair I suggest the scheme is looking to save as much money as they can, wisely so.
If you can demonstrate the value achieved by the solution you suggest would be more than simply that you don’t have split tiles on your balcony, then go for it. Negotiate hard with your body corporate and if they don’t come to the party seek Adjudication. If not, then perhaps a compromise is warranted.
Hi, I live in a 33 unit apartment block with all apartments having front balconies with glass balustrades. Recently one lot owner had louvred stackable shutters put on his balcony inside the balustrade. This was approved by BC. My concern is that these shuttered have been added to the insurance schedule of the building with premiums being paid for by the body corporate. While the shutters add value to the one apartment, they provide no benefit to anyone else, therefore we have no insurable interest in them. I also believe they are within the lot and therefore the sole responsibility of the owner. Potentially other lot owners will follow suit and our premiums will increase, not to mention the excess on any claims that all lot owners will have to bear. Have you come across this before?
Maree
Hi Maree
The insurance policy includes lot owner fixtures and improvements up to a value of $250,00 per lot. This amount is usually included without additional charge on the premium. The owner notify’s the insurance company an improvement has been made so if they’re damaged they can be claimed on.
If you can identify how much the increase in premiums is, specific to one lot only, then you can ask that lot owner to pay the additional.
Hi, I live in a 33 unit apartment block with all apartments having front balconies with glass balustrades. Recently one lot owner had louvred stackable shutters put on his balcony inside the balustrade. This was approved by BC. My concern is that these shuttered have been added to the insurance schedule of the building with premiums being paid for by the body corporate. While the shutters add value to the one apartment, they provide no benefit to anyone else, therefore we have no insurable interest in them. I also believe they are within the lot and therefore the sole responsibility of the owner. Potentially other lot owners will follow suit and our premiums will increase, not to mention the excess on any claims that all lot owners will have to bear. Have you come across this before?
Gary
Hi Gary
The insurance policy includes lot owner fixtures and improvements up to a value of $250,00 per lot. This amount is usually included without additional charge on the premium. The owner notify’s the insurance company an improvement has been made so if they’re damaged they can be claimed on.
If you can identify how much the increase in premiums is, specific to one lot only, then you can ask that lot owner to pay the additional.
Thanks Lisa. Sorry for the double up on the question. I didn’t realise I’d sent the first one and my husband resent in his name for consistency with the email address. Your site is very informative.
Many thanks
Maree
Hi Lisa
I live in Tassie and own a unit in a lot of four ground level co-joined units in a line. About a year ago I purchased unit 4, an end unit, and since then we have had additional movement and cracking (subsidence) in the external brick wall of unit 1, the other end unit. My question relates to responsibility, as unit 1 have been aware of this crack since they purchased 2 years ago, but have done nothing about it and it would appear neither have the body corporate, as they have no money. My question is, as I am a new owner I don’t want to have to pay for other people’s neglect via a special levy from BC, so who is responsible?
Hi Damian
I’m in QLD so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt, and do double check with a local source.
Who is responsible will depend on whether the area is common property or part of the lot. In QLD the type of plan the registered as would give clues as to who’s responsible but that’s not going to be applicable in Tasmania.
It is quite possible that the area is common property and therefore body corporate responsibility. That will mean yes, you will be responsible for any special levy should the body corporate need to raise funds to undertake works to lot 1. This is unfortunately the most likely scenario.
In QLD it would also be possible for four units in a line to be Standard Format Plan, meaning each owner is responsible for their own lot in its entirety, and the two lots together share costs for adjoining walls, with common property limited to access, facilities and gardens.
You need to find out the applicable legislation in Tasmania and the boundaries of common property and lots for your complex. For legislative help try posting your question on the Flat-chat Forum https://www.flat-chat.com.au/forum/ (when their update is complete). Hopefully someone there has knowledge about Tasmanian legislation. Otherwise see if you can get a copy of the plan for the scheme to check boundaries.
Hi Lisa
Our Body Corporate is replacing the balustrades on a residential apartment building in Qld and wondered what requirement e.g. engineers reports, council forms, design, engineers approval and forms are required for certification of the new balustrades.
Thanks
M
Hi Michele
That’s a technical question that needs to be addressed to an Engineer, Certifier or better yet a project manager.
I’m not aware of any requirement for an Engineers report before doing the works, though it does beg the question how do you know your balustrades need replacement? I would at least have them inspected by an Engineer to ensure its best way forward, if you haven’t already done so. Depending on the set up of your building, what balustrades your have and what you’re replacing them with you may need an Engineer to design replacements.
For most bodies corporate projects like this are better managed by a specialist building project manager. That is someone who prepares scope of works, sources quotes, compares and reports on quotes for committee, and then overseas whatever contractor is engaged, including in certification and the important liaising with committee.
Much depends on the job and why you’re doing it.
Hi Lisa,
I live in a first floor apartment which consist of a first floor and ground floor only.
I’m having trouble with the committee continually saying our balcony is common property, there are no government registered plans available from our strata only ground area’s around the building shows common property on registered plans.
The reason I’m asking this question is we are wanting to enclose our balcony with glass sliding doors they have approved 5 units with alum sliders and want us to go to an EGM without decent on the grounds it is common property. We are installing our glass sliding doors in the same place as the 5 units with alum shutters.
We live in Hope Island QLD.
Thanking you in advance
Lorraine Colquhoun
Hi Lorraine
This comment is confusing. You say both that there are no registered plans and then refer to the registered plan. You need to see the plan. There most certainly be government registered plans for the scheme as the scheme cannot be created without them.
You need to clarify if the balcony area of your lot is different from the other lots. If it is, then going to general meeting might be the simplest way of gaining approval, depending on cost of course. If not, then there is no reason for the committee to with hold approval.
It all will depend on whether the areas are actually different.
If your balcony is exclusive use then what you’re talking about is an improvement on common property, hence the need for general meeting approval.
We are in a block of 6 Strata units and are applying for exclusive use of balconies.
What do we need to do to get it?
I’ve read that once that happens we all need to maintain our own?
Is that still called Strata or Torrens if that happens? – I don’t think so.
Thank you.
Hi Ruth
I’m surprised you don’t have exclusive use of balconies already. To allocate exclusive use requires passing a resolution without dissent at general meeting then registering the changes with titles office.
The block remains strata until extinguished, which can happen when one owner owns all lots, or all owners agree. Essentially extinguishing the strata is a preclude to pulling the building down. The only change is that part of the common property has been allocated to a lot as exclusive use. Everything else remains the same.
Torrens is our nationwide system of titles for all properties, including strata properties.
Hi, I have a very old beach front 2nd floor unit (50-60 years old) in a block of 6 units in QLD. Due to its location, the air is very salty and due to inaction by the body corporate, the awning windows have become very deteriorated on the outside and need urgent repairs including re putty of the glass, sanding and painting.
When we purchased the unit 10 years ago, we sanded and painted just the interior of the wooden windows.
Every time the subject comes up at our AGM, the motion to repair the outside gets knocked down. Nearly half of my windows will not open smoothly due to cracked paint and swollen timber on the sections that I can’t reach to rectify, because being an awning window, it’s difficult to access the very tops of the windows.
I have offered the body corporate a solution that entails removing the window pane entirely, remove the glass and reset and reputty the outside as well as sand and apply 3 coats of fresh paint to the outside. I have indicated to the body corporate that I am prepared to do this at my own cost and time. Guess what, it was knocked back through a VOC.
I am at a position that if something is not done soon to the outside, then further deterioration, weathering and swelling of timber will reach a point where total replacement might be a next option.
What is my position in this situation? I really want to restore the windows (inside and out)to its original condition, but I am being refused by the the other body corporate voting members.. it’s like they don’t want to see my unit look nice and their units look bad..there is also a cracked glass in one of the windows on the balcony that needs replacing..
I am frustrated and scared my investment is continuing to deteriorate and I am being stymied trying to fix it. There are other issues with maintanence that need urgent addressing, but again I am being blocked. Any advice would be appreciated.
Hi Tony
This sounds like a particularly frustrating situation. Its a dispute you’re having with your fellow neighbours and you need to seek conciliation or an Adjudicators Order that the opposition to the motion is unreasonable. It certainly sounds unreasonable to me.
Contact the Office Commissioner Bodies Corporate and discuss with them. Before you can go through the process you will need to have tried to self-resolve. Your efforts putting forward motions for voting on seem like self-resolution to me. With luck you will be able to move straight to the Adjudication part of the search. Getting clear on your fellow investors reasons for objecting might be helpful here as well.
In you place I would seek an order clarifying if the area is common property or lot owner responsibility. If common property then you want an order the body corporate rectify the area. If not common property you want an order that the objection to you fixing it yourself is unreasonable and the motion should be declared passed.
The body corporate has a responsibility to maintain the scheme in safe and good working order, even when the scheme is old, and owners may be waiting for a developer to come along.
Hi Lisa,
I have rented a apartment in Sydney for 3 years and there is a small wooden pergola above my balcony (1 long beam with 3-4 shorter beams). Above me is a apartment, and below me is a apartment. No common ground. The pergola pulled away, about 1-2 inches initially, from the roof above and beam is now sagging in the middle (grown to 3 inches in the middle now).
I alerted the rental agency, after a member of the body corporate alerted me. No action was taken by the Owner.
I have now moved out and the body corporate is trying to tell the rental agency to hold my bond and i’m responsible for the damage.
Can you please offer advice!
Hi Aleck
What a challenging situation.
The body corporate cannot instruct the rental agency to do anything, and they’re unlikely to instruct them to hold your bond. Its more likely the body corporate has either told the owner it is their responsibility to fix, or, if it is body corporate responsibility to fix that the damage has been caused by the tenant, and is therefore the owner’s responsibility to fix.
That’s what bodies corporate do: in their eyes the owner is responsible. They bill the owners and its up to them to seek reimbursement from their tenant. Its the same for breaches of by-laws as well.
From your perspective this is a residential tenancies issue between you and the lot owner. Contact the Residential Tenancies Association for help.
Hi Lisa,
We have been trying for years to establish if our balconies (that are made with decking, not tiles, that sit on structural beams about 2 feet above the original brick building) are covered by the OC or lot owners. The top floor apartments sit above he original brick building. Poor construction by developers and almost nothing looks of quality or to code. Over time the balconies made from timber (wood decking) have started to deteriorate due to weather. They are not covered balconies. So my question has been to the OC who covers the repairs? My insurance company says the OC and the OC says me. Bit of a grey area as the decking sits on the structural beams that hold the top floor up and the walls that enclose the balcony cannot be removed to replace and repair the decking (the walls are allucobond and cement sheeting – this forms the facade of the building so it would all have to be removed to replace the decking). This has become a ‘too hard basket’ topic.. and whilst it’s been put on the back burner the balconies are getting worse. My question is do I get the problem fixed and pay for it until the OC decide who is liable and if they decide them they can reimburse me ???
Hi Kim-Anh
This is a complex question with an answer only specific to your scheme. I couldn’t say with any degree of certainty because there are a lot of potential variables. Someone needs to examine the situation and make a ruling. If you were in QLD I would suggest getting quotes for repair of the balconies, then raising a motion at general meeting that the body corporate pay the cost of the works. If the matter is lost, or ruled out of order, then I would seek Adjudication to have the motions declared passed, in the process getting a ruling from a strata professional who will examine the issues pursuant to your scheme and make a ruling.
If you’re in NSW or VIC I think you can achieve the same thing by making a NCAT or VCAT application.
You could decide to fix it yourself, however, if it is body corporate responsibility that will negate the need for the body corporate to reimburse you. Effectively, if you take on maintenance of common property those items become your responsibility, and responsibility of future buyers, in perpetuity.
Hi Lisa,
We have recently purchased at the auction an apartment with a balcony in a 4 unit apartment building in Victoria. We stupidly followed the advice of our mortgage broker and didn’t get the property assessed before purchase. After we moved in, a retired builder family friend drew our attention to the balcony being in a poor condition. We had a building inspector do an assessment and he indeed confirmed that it’s a safety hazard, that it’s dropping due to rotting timber poles that are supporting it. We don’t know the exact cause, it can be poor maintenance, weather or maybe something happened in the past that we are not aware of. The other owners say that it’s normal wear and tear and that insurance will not cover it, that we have to do it ourselves. I have contacted the insurance, but still haven’t received their response.
Also, the supporting wooden poles are placed on the neighbour’s lot under us. That neighbour’s lot is on the ground floor and the poles are in their courtyard. Our balcony provides the roof for their verandah, and they have table under our balcony. We have warned them not to spend time there. My question is, since the poles are on that lot, do we have the entire responsibility for the repairs and maintenance, or is that a shared responsibility? Who can we contact in Victoria to ascertain that? Also, do you know if insurance should cover the cost for the repairs?
Thank you in advance!
Hi Edita
Its unlikely that insurance will cover the cost of repair if its found to be the result of a leak or wear and tear. In Queensland, where I am, I would say the area sounds like shared infrastructure therefore body corporate responsibility to repair. A review of plans and by-laws might help.
Pose your question on the flat-chat forum (a google search will find them) as they have experts in Victoria who will be able to direct you to find information.
Hi
Tiles on an exclusive use area (Qld) have lifted substantially and cracked due to (assumed) slab shrinkage and shift and inadequate expansion joints. Is repair to tiles owner or BC?
Is a building report/investigation required to determine without doubt cause of damage first?
Many thanks
Hi Loren
This is a difficult question. Tiles are lot owner responsibility so the inadequate expansion joint would be your problem. The slab shrinkage and shift would be body corporate issue. So …
I would discuss this with your strata manager, Caretaker or committee. A: they have more information than you, so for instance, this could be something that’s happening all over the scheme and they already know what the issue is. And B: they may take point on the matter engaging a contractor to investigate. Just be sure to bring up who pays so there are no surprises.
Thanks Lisa
We now have an engineers report which says “The observer drummy tiles and peaking of ceramic tiles is due to the expected ceramic tile growth and ground floor suspended slab shrinkage. Adequate movement joints and perimeter joints to the sand cement bedding and ceramic installation were not provided at time of original construction. That is the area of crummy tiles and peaking ceramic tiles is due to inadequate construction”.
So does this mean it is clearly the unit holders responsibility and not the Body Corp?
Thanks for your help
Hi Loren
Its not that simple. I would discuss the matter with the body corporate. You want to check out there are no issues with the slab and waterproof membrane underneath the tiles, both of which are body corporate responsibility. The tiles themselves though are the responsibility of the lot owner. Discussion on what needs to be done and how it will affect these interconnecting parts would be ideal.
If the issue is just the tiles then yes, this is a lot owner responsibility.
Hi Lisa,
We are in QLD and have a unit in a block built in ‘72. All the balconies originally had steel and glass balustrades (some still do) but ours and a few others have had the balconies enclosed with aluminium windows. I’m sure you’ve seen plenty of examples of this before. This has been done in our case by stripping the original balustrade down to the railing and main supports only, and filling in the remainder with fixed or sliding glass framed with aluminium.
The steel components have started to rust away badly and we’re at a loss as to who is responsible for repairing what. Yes it is original components that have deteriorated, but there are improvements that are now an inseparable part of the arrangement. The body corporate holds no documents regarding the enclosure of the balcony nor any agreement about who is responsible for maintenance post improvement. Our balcony faces onto common property and there is no exclusive use provision for said balcony. There is also nothing in the bylaws which specifically addresses owners improvements to common property in this regard.
Any light or experience you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers, Alistair
Hi Alistair
This is an unfortunate situation, and also unfortunately not particularly common.
The approval given is going to be crucial. Normally, when a lot owner makes this sort of improvement to common property, they do so on the understanding that they will become responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of the improvement. The terms of the approval usually spell this out. The body corporate is only required to maintain current infrastructure in working condition. There is no obligation to improve the scheme, hence if owners improve, they then take over responsibility for the improvement. The same applies if the lot owner makes an improvement without approval.
This sort of approval is made to the lot, so conditions, and responsibility will transfer to all new owners on purchase.
I’d say a lack of the approval document might be working in your favour at the moment. That said, depending on when it was done, it could have been done by the body corporate, in which case they would be responsible. The scheme was built in 1972 and the legislation changed in 1997 so conditions could be different.
Resolving this is likely to be challenging. I would negotiate an agreement for the maintenance works with the body corporate where you both contribute, if you can. If you want to insist the body corporate is responsible, you possibly could, but that could also backfire and you could find yourself holding the whole bag, as it were.
Thank you very much Lisa, the information you have provided has been very helpful regarding how I proceed from here. I have taken a look at another unit in the block with an enclosed balcony like ours. It is interesting that the windows on both their balcony and ours are exactly the same make and brand as the windows throughout the building, so I guess it certainly is possible that these balconies may have been built in as an extra inclusion off the plan, or by the Body Corporate very early on in the building’s life.
I guess I might have to visit the BCM in person and have a really good trawl through everything to see if I can dig anything up.
Otherwise, I think your absolutely right that I’m probably best to try and meet them halfway on this – to be honest any extent to which I don’t have to shoulder the cost myself is a win in my books!
Again, thanks for the help. I feel like I have a much clearer picture of what I need to do now.
Hi Lisa,
Where can we get a definite answer about whether a balcony is common property or part of the lot?
We recently bought a unit on the ground floor with 2 large enclosed balconies in QLD. The head of body corporate is insisting it is common property even though there is no mention of it in the by-laws which only states the car park space as exclusive use. We also showed the plans from the titles office to a lawyer who advised us that it was in fact part of the lot and not common but still the body corp is insisting it is without providing any documentation to prove it.
Hi Julie
The plan sets out the boundaries of the lot and common property. Without having seen the plans I’m inclined to agree with your lawyer. Referring to the documentation for your scheme is the place to get definitive answer.
Note that in a BUP the lot owner is responsible for the tiles on the balcony and the body corporate the waterproof membrane underneath as it provides needed support for the concrete slab, particularly important on the ground floor as usually you’re suspended over the basement. The balustrade is usually the boundary between lot and common property and in that case is body corporate responsibility.
Hi Lisa, (apologies for the length of this post!)
Could you please let me know your opinion on a couple of situations I have occurring within my unit complex currently. I am in QLD.
1.We have had a series of leaks reported from the top two penthouse style balconies (3/4 of balconies are uncovered) resulting in damage to the two units below. The balconies are exclusive use common areas and inaccessible with locked gates,. After investigations it was concluded the waterproofing membrane had failed. Our body corporate manager put through an insurance claim for the damages citing the leaks were due to a one off storm and it was denied as it deemed the damage to the membrane was not due to a storm or basic wear and tear but that it was due to it not being maintained (corrosion over a period of years to the balustrades and other areas enabling organic matter to grow underneath the membrane). The photos of the corrosion show the damage is clearly visible and shows the waterproofing very obviously lifting around it. It also shows organic material growing out from under the membrane in a few areas. The report cited that this damage would have been visible for a number of years. Also, the photos of the damage to the units below show extensive paint bubbling in the ceiling and expanded areas on the cabinetry. This damage has happened over a period time as well. One of the top units has been a rental for over 8 years and the two units below are also rentals. The other top unit has been vacant for over 18 months. As a result, we are paying a huge amount to replace the waterproofing and using sinking funds to repair the units below as well as compensate for loss of rent.
My question regarding this situation is where does the responsibility lie regarding maintaining this area if it is exclusive use and part of a lot? This damage would have obvious for a period of years, however as one of the units has been a long-term rental and the other vacant for over 18 months it has not been reported. I am aware that QLD legislation deems the body corporate responsible for all waterproofing membranes in common areas, including exclusive use, however if access is only available to owners/tenants and damage is not reported does this fall under another clause? Also, the damage to the bottom units was not reported to the real estates or noted in the real-estate inspections until it got to the degree it is now.
The second situation is that prior to the leaks being reported to units 3 and 4, the unit below unit 4 reported leaks. The body corporate manager assumed this was due to the roof which was repaired the previous year with plans in place to replace in the next 5 years. The top balconies were not investigated at the time even though the leaks were occurring on this side of the building. Insurance covered the repairs and it was decided to replace the roof prematurely as it was assumed to be the cause. Unit 2 reported leaks again after the roof replacement and it was then discovered to be coming from the balconies above. The damage was again repaired under insurance. Should the body corporate have had the balconies investigated 2 years ago with the first report the damage would have been seen, roof not needed to be replaced unnecessarily and damage not have occurred to units 3 and 4 or not as badly. Does any liability fall on the body corporate manager as the balconies were not investigated?
Thanks,
Sarah
Hi Sarah
Firstly, that sounds like a terrible situation. How awful.
Secondly, the body corporate seems to be doing all required now that the issues have been discovered. Whether they should have acted quicker is a question of liability and would be better addressed to a Solicitor. I would suggest you’d need to establish lack of action on behalf of the scheme when they had reason to believe that the issue was the waterproofing membrane. You’d need to troll correspondence for any reports that weren’t addressed.
Also bearing in mind, establishing the body corporate was liable may not have any practical purpose for you. Who is going to reimburse the owners? Basically you’d raise funds to reimburse yourselves which is a poor option.
You might have more success establishing the committee were liable. Most schemes have some form of Office Bearers Liability insurance which may cover the situation. But again, you’d need to establish that there were direct issues reported that were ignored. Generally speaking the body corporate has no right to enter a lot without cause. IF the owners don’t report issues there’s no reason to enter.
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for you reply 🙂 One other question. Since my last message our body corporate has called an EGM and presented 4 quotes. 2 to repair the 2 units below – around 6k in total. The other 2 quotes were for waterproofing the balconies. One was 216k and the other 79k. When I asked for a Guthrie quote considering the massive gap in price I was told no. I am aware legislation only requires 2, however in all works we have down in the past 4 or more quotes were obtained. I then asked for the EGM to be pushed back by a week so I could gather more information. I was told legislation did not permit this. Would you have any input as to why they would not get another quote?
Thanks,
Sarah
Hi Sarah
Calling an general meeting is a big deal. Once the motion has been passed at committee meeting the meeting is deemed “convened” and cannot be cancelled or changed. There are requirements regarding Notice and timeframes when that Notice must be with owners. So the reason for not obtaining a third quote to me looks like a timing issue. They didn’t have time, or apparently inclination, to wait around any longer.
Remember committee are volunteers. The business of strata is consuming and when you’re fitting it in around your life can be challenging.
Hi Sarah
I suggest you bring the matter of a third quote up at the meeting. Owners at the meeting can vote to amend the motion. An acceptable amendment could be something like these repairs are approved up to a threshold of $X amount, subject to a third quote, with committee authorised to select up to the threshold.
Hi
I’ve have a water ingress problem that has occurred from my private balcony. Body corporate organised someone to inspect it who said that he doubted that the balcony was waterproofed and also stated that the concrete slab underneath the balcony appears to have been cut and repaired. The underneath of the slab/balcony is the common carpark area. Water from the balcony was also escaping through the electrical wiring underneath the slab. Body corporate has told me that I’m responsible for fixing the waterproofing. Is this correct? Or is it the responsibility of body corporate to ensure the membrane is in place? Building is 12 years old and tiles are in great condition. I’m in Qld. Thanks.
Hi Helen
Obviously I don’t know the reason they’re saying its your responsibility, and they may have good reason, but on the surface I agree with you, I would assume this is a body corporate issue to rectify.
Thanks Lisa. It’s quite confusing as body corporate said the floor of my balcony is over the carparks which is an area that can be hosed out. Body corporate sent out another contractor to inspect my balcony, who said my siding door that accesses balcony was not installed correctly at build and the water has accessed wall through side of door (no evidence of water underneath door on slab (I pulled up timber beading to inspect). Both people who inspected my balcony have said the slab beneath my balcony was cut and repaired due to probable water problems before. I’m going to need a report from body corporate. What legal language should I be needing from them? Surely their decision is based on some rules? What do I need to ask from them?
Thanks so much Lisa.
Thanks.
Hi Helen
The body corporate is required to maintain waterproof membranes. There’s no specific language to speak of. Have one or both of the contractors who inspected provide a report. The issue is the source of the leak. If its the water proofing membrane, or lack of it in this case, then the body corporate is responsible. If the point of water entry is the sliding door that is most likely part of your lot and therefore your responsibility.
Determine the source of the leak first. This will denote who is responsible. If its the water proof membrane report to the body corporate. You can obtain quotes to fix as well and depending on the value submit for general or committee meeting.
Thanks for your advice Lisa.
Hi Lisa, thank your for the article. It’s very informative and helpful.
I live in an apartment building in Melbourne. My neighbour downstairs reported to body Corp that they had water ingress in their ceilings and they have engaged a plumber to check. The plumber said it’s likely to be that my balcony’s waterproofing has failed.
Body Corp said because my balcony sits inside my private lot, it should be my responsibility to fix it. The balcony is a tiled balcony and it is in great condition, no cracked tiles and all the grout is clean and well maintained. In your article you mentioned that in this case body Corp should be responsible for fixing the waterproofing membranes under the tiles. Would this still be the case in Victoria? If so, Is there any information/legislation I can refer to when speaking to the body Corp?
Thank you in advance!
Hi Ryan
I’m not familiar with Victorian legislation. Try posting your question on the flat-chat forum. They have Victorian specialists.
Hi Lisa
We are in ACT. The property is a townhouse unit under strata management
It is 1.5 years old. The balcony Is private with the garage under it. Balncony has been leaking and the weight of the water build-up during rains has led to partial collapse of the garage ceiling below the balcony.
Tradesmen have completed an assessment with the following root causes identified:
– Visible water leaking from the external balcony surface due to gaps in brick surface
– Including but not limited to grout joints, cracking perimeter around tiles, with multiple loose and drummy skirting
– Missing flexible sealant on perimeter joints on external balcony
– Un-sealed metal framing allowing water to enter under the tile surface
My question is :
1. Private or not.. isn’t balcony waterproofing Starta responsibility as part of Building insurance? Is the law in ACT any different?
2. If the builder keeps stalling and the property is out of warranty period.. would the repair costs fall onto the Starta?
We are in dire straits here.. would appreciate honest and unambiguous guidance.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Uxskills
This is not a question with an easy answer.
The first place to start is the builders warranty. This will negate the whole question of “is it strata or owner responsibility”. Report the issue to the Builder, either through your strata committee, or directly if the committee are not taking any action. If the matter is reported before the structural warranty period expires the Builder will still need to make repairs, assuming certain parameters. The same applies if the matter has already been fixed once. Report immediately though because the parameters mentioned before include prompt reporting.
Balcony waterproofing is usually strata responsibility, at least in QLD, however not if the area is part of the lot. So for instance, if your shower leaked to the lot below you would be responsible for repairing the waterproofing. With the way the balcony is over the garage this could make the whole area exclusive use or part of the lot. You can either seek legal advice on your setup or simply submit to strata and see if they repair. Matters are complicated by the warranty. Maybe a discussion with the strata committee might be the way to proceed.
Hey Lisa
We’re in a set of units in Brisbane, and we want to put in a ceiling fan on our balcony. The balcony is set back from the balustrade, but would be visible from outside of the building.
Would we need body corporate approval before installing?
Hi Paul
Yes, anything visible from the outside of the building approval should be sort first. Actually, I find it easier to seek approval for most things first. Its always better to head any potential disputes off before they can start.
Hi Lisa
We are enclosing our ground floor apartment with another apartments balcony above. Everything has been approved up to this point. We have now discovered that the balcony above has no waterproofing whatsoever and we need to get this done to have our Renos certified. We are in Brisbane QLD.
My question is, whose responsibility is it to pay? Can I force this to be done? (if I pay).
Do you have any suggestions?
Hi Ian
Waterproof membranes protect the balcony slabs so its usually body corporate responsibility to rectify any issues. The owner is responsible for the tiles on the balcony. Its probably best to discuss this matter with your strata manager / committee to see how best to proceed. It could be a curly issue.
Hi Lisa,
A planter box is located on a balcony that designated as being for the owners’ exclusive use. It is leaking into the unit below causing damage to the paintwork. Is it the owner’s or the BC’s responsibility? Would it make any difference if the planter box was within the boundary of the lot? I ask this because the BC is responsible for the water-proof membrane in the roof/under the balcony tiles, is it not? Why not the water-proof membrane in the planter-box? This is Qld by the way.
Thanks,
Scott
Hi Scott
That’s a technical legal questions and outside my ability to answer I’m afraid. I would seek legal advice, or maybe ask the body corporate to seek advice / share advice they have already had.
If it helps, I agree with you, the body corporate is responsible for waterproof membranes, why not the membrane in the planer box? I expect the answer will take a bit of research and investigation into the designs/plans/circumstances.
Hi Lisa
I live in an apartment that has an uncovered terrace. There are 20 levels above mine and objects frequently fall onto my terrace. It is dangerous to sit out there and consequently we don’t use the terrace at all.
BC is saying it is my responsibility to to erect a cover over the terrace and this would require approval. I believe this should be a BC expense. the balustrades are obviously failing to prevent objects eg a 3kg dumbell, falling.
As you have stated the balustrades are common property.I’m expected to pay to protect myself and family from objects falling from above?
I live in SE Qld
Thanks
Frank
Hi Frank
The body corporate has no responsibility to make good poor design. As the lot owner you will need to make of it what you will.
Balustrades have strict guidelines that must be complied with. They revolve around safety but I’m not sure there is any requirement to stop objects from falling underneath. I’m not sure how you would enforce that anyway: there’s no telling from down below where on the balcony an object fell from since you’d have to factor in where people are leaving objects.
Hi Lisa
If those higher balconies overlooked common property WHS would raise a red flag I’m certain.
But private property there is no responsibility on the BC to protect residents.?
My insurer is of the opinion such accidental death or injury would be covered by the Strata insurance and offers no cover
for our situation.
Strata insurance say they have no liability for this situation.
Very frustrating.
Hi Lisa
In our complex of 110 lots over 3 buildings, built 13 years ago in inner-city West End, Brisbane, the developer put retractable louvre shutters on some west-facing apartments and on a couple of ground-level units (for privacy). Because there are many units facing west and north, successive Body Corporate Committees have approved a variety of sliding or folding louvre shutters, basically up to only 50% coverage of an individual balcony or patio, as that is what the Brisbane Residential Plan 2000 allowed. Our understanding was that the Brisbane City Council delegated responsibility for approvals to the BC as long as they complied with the plan.
In fact, a couple of owners have gone ahead without approval, and some have manipulated Committee to approve ‘a little more than 50%’ (one is 100%). The unapproved installations include non-retracting sets of louvres.
There are also quite a large number of units with external roller blinds, most allowing for 100% coverage.
All blind and shutter installations are colour-compliant, and Reasonably attractive, but the current Committee, of which I am a member, wishes to tidy up the approvals process.
We have been made aware that blinds, and possibly some shutters, may constitute vertical fire-spreading hazards, which implies that they should not be added to buildings.
Our by-laws, based on the DA, do not really allow for enclosure of balconies/patios except for those on the original developers’ plans. The 2000 plan, and the current plan do allow for such installations (with restrictions), but when the DA says no, we are concerned at going on in the same way, with the possibility that owners could be forced to remove all such work if Council decides to enforce.
We are soon to have a 12-14 storey complex of 4 towers plus road-fronting townhouses built across the (relatively narrow) road On the south side of our complex. Units facing that will almost certainly find the need for privacy screening, so there will be more applications.
It is clear that for comfort, climate-control and privacy, owners in our complex rightly require these measures, but it is an ongoing source of concern. We have discussed taking action to change by-laws, change DA, have new plans drawn showing the possibility of ALL units having Council-allowable enclosures, but cannot agree on a way forward.
I would appreciate any advice you can give me, to guide our actions.
Thanks
Bob
Hi Bob
This is a complex question, as you well know. The Council by-laws and DA will likely be quite strict about the shutters. Getting clear on what’s allowable is probably the first step. You are right to hesitate before disregarding the Development Approval conditions as that can be a costly mistake. Similarly seeking changes to the DA can be expensive.
I suggest committee have a conversation with a town planner. They will be able to give you advice regarding what Council will allow, possibly following research, and they are also the professional to help with an amendment of the DA.
When committee are clear on what they will allow moving forward, presumably with clarity on what is or isn’t allowed, then by-laws can be amended to reflect, providing long-term framework within which to approve.
Good day
we are luck to have a top floor balcony stretching over 12 meters. Most of it is covered but at both ends the corners are not fro an area of about 3×2 meter . There is no drainage along the 12 meter as the roof of the unit below us is attached to our ballustrade, so a drainage pipe would need to go through the roof I suppose.
Due to the lenght of the balcony the water pools in the center and also where the bigger roof gap is and flowing towards the living room balcony door a good 2 meter.
We have raised this with Strata but again to ask to look into adding drainage – but they said it is lot responsibility but we believe it is wrong as clearly it was not built with the correct “fall”.
We believe the overall building is suffering due to this as are the balcony tiles and the concrete balustrade on which you can see already the waterlines/marks.
Would it not be their responsibility that the building is built safe, e.g. what happen if I slip where the water pooled, would they be responsible ?
Hi Nina
There is no easy answer for that question. Generally speaking water pooling should be dealt with because it has capacity to cause issues with the membrane and lead to water ingress to lots.
That they’ve said its “lot owner responsibility” leads me to think there may be more to the situation. Potentially the issue is with the tiling which is lot owner responsibility for a balcony. The body corporate is responsible for the membrane underneath the tiling.
There is no requirement for the body corporate to rectify poor design on behalf of the builders, except to the extent that it will impact the structural capacity of the building, body corporate responsibility to maintain.
So … yeah, no easy answer. The place to start is to determine what the issue is and what damage, if any, its causing. If you know the issue hopefully you can determine responsibility.
Hi Lisa,
We live in a 10 storey complex of 20 Units on the Sunshine Coast.
We live on the 6th floor. The balconies from our floor, on the northern side of our building, protrude further than those above. The balconies from our floor down also have a concrete ‘hob’ which means any water run off and debris is contained within our balcony perimeters.
Unfortunately, over the 6 years we have lived in this complex, we have had water and debris, including bottle tops, food, vomit, dirt, foliage etc land on our balcony. Most recently, on Christmas Day about 1030am, as we awaited our 14 guests, including our 2 small grandchildren, a Unit above washed off their balcony.
The water obviously wet out patio area running through our entertaining area to the drainage hole, spoiling our Christmas Lunch set up.
We have previously written to our Body Corp. requesting a regular complex balcony wash off so as we can avoid situations like the one described above. We feel if everyone is aware that at certain times on a certain day that the balconies are being washed off, we can bring in our cushions or furniture and not plan get togethers outside.
Our Body Corporate rejected our suggestion.
We believe that not respecting others property in this manner constitutes a nuisance/hazard to us by not allowing us to enjoy our property everyday.
We would appreciate your advice before we write to our Body Corporate again
Kind Regards
Jo
Hi Jo
I’m sorry your Christmas dinner was ruined. I agree with you. The way to stop this sort of thing from happening is to have set days when balconies are to be washed down. That said, Even without that outline Christmas Day seems a pretty rubbish time to do it. I guess your upstairs neighbour was only thinking of themselves. Maybe you could have a gentle discussion with them letting them know how their actions impacted you.
Re the body corporate: you could bring the matter up again.
I have a balcony on top floor that is 30 square meters . Tiles are cracked and rain squished through the grout when you walk on it . I have been told it’s my responsibility to redo but tiles have been removed and water proofing has to be redone . I believe body Corp should be paying for that but was wondering roughly how much is water proofing as if it’s not that expensive I might not bother and pay it myself .
Hi Phillip
The cost of waterproofing will depend on the works that need doing. Contact a water proofer / tiler I suggest getting the body corporate to pay for the waterproofing because even just the tiling works are likely to be quite pricey. Plus there are a lot of things that could potentially go wrong so best to let them be responsible for any warranty issues.
Hi Lisa,
Thanks so much for the time you take in responding to these questions, and the answers themselves. It truly is so helpful for people who don’t know where to start.
Similar to Nina, we have a drainage issue with our courtyard. We live on the ground floor of an apartment complex in Brisbane. The fall in the slab causes water to pool in an area shared by our neighbour and ourselves. To prevent the water from flowing into their courtyard, our neighbour has put a plank of wood under the fence, essentially damming the water onto our side. We have approached the body corporate and they said it is not their problem. However, as you have said above, the membrane is and having water pool above it until it evaporates could only cause damage to the membrane in the future. Further, it seems that on our neighbour’s other side of the courtyard they have pooling above a drain implying a blocked drain.
Reading the comments above, I am comfortable either remove the wood or drill holes in it, but that won’t fix the fall of the slab issue and this is what I am mostly interested in.
I understand it is not the body corporates responsibility to fix the design issues of the builder, but pooling water is also unsafe and at a stretch a health risk with mosquitos I suppose. The tiles are now damaged from the water pooling and despite using every chemical under the sun we can not get the mould off. Other than that the tiles and membrane seem to be in good condition. The pickle we are in is that the body corporate is not responsible for the slab, but we can’t fix it without their permission, and the water pooling is not really acceptable.
Taking things to the twilight zone, the previous owner of our apartment is the president of the body corporate so I am sure he will be unwilling to accept that he should have done anything or that it was sold the property knowingly misleading us.
From your experience, would love to know where you think we could start? I have thought about Australian Consumer Law and the warranties required under that, have considered whether we can get a quote to relevel the slab and try and re-engage the body corporate? Do we suck it up and leave it until the membrane is an issue and ask the body corporate to deal with it then, do we sell it and not mention it?
Just unsure where to start.
Many thanks
Ben
Hi Ben
I would start by getting opinion and quotes regarding rectification. This will give you advice on what needs to be done.
Next is to address the all important matter of whether or not you are responsible or the body corporate. That will depend on type of plan, whether its part of the lot or exclusive use, etc etc.
If its your responsibility, seek permission from committee to carry out the works required.
If is body corporate responsibility, ask them to rectify. If they do not, start the dispute resolution process.
Re the neighbours: drainage is one of those complicated things that might be in a lot but actually services more than one lot. In which case its a body corporate issue. Maybe clarify with neighbour / committee what’s happening there. If there’s a drain, and its not draining, there’s an issue that should be addressed.
Lisa,
Thanks for the artical. I am in Vic and recently bought an apartment with a balcony and the building is about 10 years old. Have notice on heavy rainy days that water comes in through the balcony door somehow and wets the carpet. So I am assuming that as an owner I am resposable to fix this even if the door is in solid concrete which is part of the structure of the building ? The bit I get confussed about is if this is the case and I want to repair it I will then need body corp permission to replace it? Is this correct?
Thanks for any available information
Brad
Hi ,we are having a deck replaced nsw , it is common property , it is in a Flame Zone, it is going to be made of fibre cement boards , I asked at our AGM about colour coating and anti slip seal , was told I would have to paint , there is no by-law to that affect , so the question is does the fibre cement stay the same as it is put down , which is ugly , who colours it , and who applies the anti slip , the current deck is a deep reddish colour ,any advice would help , other wise I will go to mediation
Hi David
I’m not sure. That is a fairly specific and unusual set of circumstances. It might be best to discuss with a Solicitor or as you say, seek mediation. Someone who can do research on similar cases.
I don’t think a by-law is required because you are not changing the structure, that is OC responsibility. In most cases the tiling on top would be the responsibility of the owner. The OC is responsible for the structure only. I’m not sure if that would apply to painting as well. Hence maybe discuss with a strata Solicitor.
You could pose your question in the Flat-Chat forum or on lookupstrata.com.au. Someone there may be able to have a solicitor respond.