Case Note ~ ACAT Grants OC Access Rights to do Balcony Repairs

ACAT Grants OC Access Rights to do Balcony Repairs

THE OWNERS – UNITS PLAN No 4273 v STORMER CORPORATION PTY LTD (Unit Titles) [2024] ACAT 31

An Owners Corporation must repair and maintain the common property in a building. While a balcony isn’t part of the common property, it is an A class ‘defined part’ of a building, meaning the OC has a duty to keep it in good, working order pursuant to s24(d) of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 (UTMA).

After issues with waterproofing around the edges of balconies on level four of the building, the OC of a building in Kingston sought access to units on level four to complete the necessary works. The repairs were carried out for all balconies free of charge by the original builder, except for Unit 22, where the owner refused to provide entry to the Unit.

Water damage to the unit directly below Unit 22, Unit 16, was causing anguish for the owners. The water damage was exacerbated by a watering system in Unit 22 that operated twice daily and ‘cascaded’ over the balcony. The owners of Unit 16 threatened to sue the OC and the Unit Owner for damages and losses associated with the sale of the apartment, with selling the unit seeming the only possible recourse for the applicants given the Unit Owner 22’s continued refusal to grant consent.

Having attempted to gain consent from the Unit Owner or an authorised representative for the best part of a year, the applicants sought an order from ACAT so that it could fulfill its statutory maintenance obligations and repair the balcony of Unit 22. Senior Member Orlov ordered that the applicant carry out works to the balcony of Unit 22 via external scaffolding. After the Unit Owner’s prior threats to call the police if the OC attempted to gain access to the apartment, the Tribunal specified that the Unit Owner be restrained from preventing, interfering with or delaying the repairs.  

Previous
Previous

Case Note ~ Guest house development approval set aside at Pialligo Estate

Next
Next

Case Note ~ Tribunal says no to smoking