Legal Liability of Body Corp Committee for Renovations

[hwd007]

Legal Liability of Body Corp Committee for Renovations

I have a question about legal liability of a Body Corporate committee, terms of the decisions it makes on behalf of all owners, particularly if owners not on the committee are not prior notified of some of committee decisions or not invited to participate in the decision making process on certain matters.

Consider this demolition of a unit internal wall scenario. Owner A wants to do some major renovations to his / her unit. The work requires engineers reports, building certificates of contractors etc... to be presented to the committee and Body Corporate management and registered to file, prior to the committee's approval of any construction / demolition works on their unit. Non committee owners are not notified of the works. The committee casts a vote with the majority of votes giving approval for construction / demolition works to begin.

The unit renovation goes ahead and unexpected damage from jack hammering of one wall, impacts on other walls that adjoin other units, which results in wall cracks. Also the ceiling over the wall being demolished over time starts to buckle. Even though the engineers report gave the OK to go ahead based on strict wall re-construction / support specifications, building damage still results.

The question then becomes, who's liable for the damage and to what extent ? if the builder and or engineer screw up the job. The owner of the unit being renovated ? The committee for voting in favour ? Or just those committee members who voted in favour ? Or all owners, even though they had no idea of the works. Even if the owners were prior notified of the works, does their liability increase and if all owners were part of the decision making process, does there liability increase further ? Does the Body Corporate Management have any liability for such an incident ?

These are some of the questions I would appreciate your views on.

Thanks,

 

[handyandy]

I would say that Owner A is responsible.

IMHO

The BC (and Committee ) should have made it clear in the approval letter that Owner A accept all responsibility for damage caused and rectify at Owner A's expense.

The viewing of Engineers reports and the like is just to take some comfort that Owner A has approach the job correctly.

The Exec Committee was elected by the general meeting of the BC at which time limits can be set as to what the Exec can authorize. Unless the authority limits the actions of the exec then they can (and do) make decisions for the whole strata without having to have extraordinary meetings.

Not clear as to whether this request was first presented at a full BC meeting. If I was on this committee I would insist that the proposal was presented to all interested parties at either the AGM or have an extraordinary meeting. That way there can be no subsequent finger pointing.

If the strata was to become involved in the fix of the problem (even in suing the builder or Owner A) than the full strata will be liable (even Owner A) ie to the full extent of each unit holders entitlements.

Cheers

 

[marg4000]

We owned a unit in a building where one owner requested permission to renovate. All owners were sent detailed plans and descriptions of the renovation, plus a legal statement to the effect that the owner was responsible for any damage or expenses arising from the renovation.

From memory it required 100% agreement from all other owners.
Marg

 

[JDM]

Sounds like a really messy situation! If you're concerned i would be seeking independant legal advice as there are too many variables for someone to be able to give you a straight answer here.

Given that there was an engineers report stating that the works would not damage the building, either the engineer or workmen have been negligent. It should be discovered who this was and then that company should be pursued in my opinion.

I think you might have a hard time finding the body corp liable given they went about ensuring all appopriate reports were obtained.

 

[travelbug]

The committee is NOT liable (unless the agreement states they cannot make decisions regarding structural work). The committee don't have to consult every owner for every decision they make. That would be a nightmare.

When the committee is voted in they are given powers (voted on by all owners). If you want to restrict their powers you need to attend AGM's and state the limits.

People tend to forget that the committee are just "people" who own a unit. They are not experts. They are guided by the Strata manager as to what they can and cannot do. This is the reason I like to have a spending limit placed on committees.

Something major like a structural renovation though I know I would refer to all owners (I'm on 2 committees). I would not feel comfortable giving the go ahead on something like that.

Get on the committee if you want to be in the loop.

 

[hwd007]

Thanks people. Bear in mind this is a pending scenario about to play itself out. It hasn't actually happened yet, but I am concerned about the what if it all goes pear shaped scenarios. Your thoughts much appreciated.

I'm getting the feeling it might be a good idea for all owners to be aware of what's being proposed and that securing some kind of guarantee for coverage of any damages costs resulting from the owners renovations , might be desirable.

 

[hwd007]

Is the Body Corp owners committee obliged to vote on every item ? or can the chairperson make abritrary decisions about matters to be dealt with ? and instruct the Body Corp management to act accordingly ?

 

[travelbug]

As an owner you will not be asked to vote on everything, nor will you be informed about every expenditure. You will however be given an annual report that outlines expenditure. The exec committee has the power to make decisions and spend money (limit depends on the strata- it's voted on by members).
If you want to be involved in the decision making process get on the exec committee. From my experience there are not a lot of people willing to take the job on.

 

[hwd007]

Thanks, I am on a committee. My enquiry is whether or not, the chairperson can make arbitrary decisions ( i.e. by themselves ) about matters to be dealt with and instruct the Body Corp management to act accordingly ? or do they require the views of all committee members votes to be taken into consideration, with a simple majority guiding the recommended course of action ?

I guess I'm asking this in the context an owners proposed unit renovation, that has been put to the committee by the Body Corp Management, in them seeking direction of any action required by the committee. There is no expenditure relating to this matter, beyond that of the owner conducting the renovations, unless of course it becomes a disaster and then impacts on other owners.

However, this matter has been referred to the committee, by the Body Corp Management, for advice on any action required to be taken by BC Management on behalf of the committee. Thus I presume the expectation is that the committee has to make some kind of decision about it and then advise BC Management of any required action.

I'm thus wondering if any decision on such a matter, needs to be by vote amongst committee members, rather than by the chairperson making the decision on their own, even though no expenditure of money is involved in the process. I guess point being, if the committee was not required to provide input into the course of action, then the matter would not have been presented to the committee by BC Management in the first place. i.e. the owner seeking to renovate would simply provide details and then proceed at their own discretion. However the committee has been ask for guidance on the matter.

 

[hwd007]

Another question about this, is when an internal wall has been demolished in accordance with engineering plans, does it have to be signed off either by a registered builder or the engineering company / qualified civil engineer after inspection ?

I mean otherwise you could get the engineering company to draw up the plans and then get any Joe handyman to do the work, regardless of their level of qualification ( which could be someone with absolutely no trade or building qualifications ), with no checking that the work was carried out in accordance with the engineering recommendations.

Just curious about this and the requirements needed to be followed, to ensure structural work carried out, is done so in accordance with the recommended professional advice and where necessary, by qualified builders, rather than any Joe off the street, that says he knows how to knock down a brick wall. Surely this type of activity has to be regulated ? Does such work have to be ticked off by some relevant authority ?

Any Comments about the trade qualifications required to knock out walls and the checks and balances needed to ensure such work is done properly and to the required building standards ?

 

[jrc]

Normal governance is that a chairman has no more power than any other committee member.

 

[hwd007]

Do you have to be a qualified builder to knock down an internal wall in an apartment block ? i.e. is it the law ?