By Jennifer Paddock

It can be difficult to distinguish between maintenance and repairs on the one hand, and improvements on the other. In a situation where the trustees are unsure of the nature of the proposed work they will be uncertain whether the particular expense requires the owners’ permission or not. Take for example the issue of replacement. If a scheme’s building has old wooden window frames which are clearly in need of replacement, would replacing them with longer lasting and less maintenance-intense aluminium frames be considered an improvement to the common property or could it be considered maintenance and repair? Professor CG van der Merwe in his work Sectional Titles, Shareblocks and Time-Sharing (LexisNexis) speaks about ‘non-recurring costly items’ which can only, with difficulty, be categorised as either maintenance and repair or improvements. The replacement of wooden window frames with aluminium ones seems to be such an item. You may think that maintenance and repair does not include replacement and therefore such work must be considered to be an improvement to the common property. But this is not necessarily true. The Act envisages replacement when necessary as part of the body corporate’s duty to maintain and repair pipes, wires, cables and ducts; so is it really a stretch to say that maintenance and repair can include replacement? You may then argue that because the window frames are being replaced with a higher quality and more expensive material that this is an improvement. But this is not necessarily the case. The trustees may have taken a long-term attitude towards the maintenance and repair of the window frames by replacing the wooden frames with aluminium ones. Such replacement would prevent the window frames from having to be replaced and constantly maintained in the foreseeable future, so this attitude could in fact be a cost-saving one.
Professor CG van der Merwe states that “rapid technological advance and new building designs and materials may widen the traditional concept of maintenance”. He asks the question “Is the replacement of a defective lift by a more modern type an improvement or does it fall under maintenance of the common property?”. In van der Merwe’s view “the problem of distinguishing between these two concepts becomes even more involved if it is regarded as a question of fact which is to be resolved in each instance by reference to the characteristics and nature of the scheme and the social and economic position of the occupants”.
So how does one distinguish between an item that is considered to be an improvement and one that is considered maintenance and repair? In our view one must consider the utility and the cost of the item. An item would be maintained or repaired if the work done results in the item having the same utility as it had before it was fixed/replaced and if the cost of the work/replacement is roughly the same as it has been in the past taking inflation into account. An item would have been improved if the trustees decide to significantly increase the utility of the item despite the fact that it is possible to fix/replace the item with material that has the same utility.
In some instances the case is clear cut, for example modernising a perfectly functional foyer area purely because the residents feel it is out-dated. This is clearly an example of an improvement to the common property because the foyer works and does not require attention. However, there are often times when it is not so clear. The attitudes of investor-owners often differ vastly from resident-owners and the owners will argue one way or the other to further their differing agendas. Because the Act and prescribed rules do not guide us on how to distinguish between maintenance and repairs and improvements, owners use their own value judgments to try and resolve the matter.
When disputes arise in this regard the owners may face a deadlock situation as the cost of resolving the dispute is likely to far outweigh the cost of maintaining, repairing or improving the item in question. A practical way which would allow the trustees to move forward in this situation is for the owners in general meeting to give to them a direction in terms of section 39(1) of the Act by majority vote as to how to treat the proposed work. However, this would not necessarily resolve the issue and an owner who disagreed with the direction could still initiate arbitration proceedings if s/he felt it necessary.Article reference: Volume 4, Issue 12, Page 3.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
2 Comments.
good day
Hope you are well.
I am a owner of a sectional tilte unit in a complex.
Our Bodycorp has decided to install new speed humps.
This is verry big and most cars scratch on it, as a home owner I was not conciddered in this, and when I asked I got a letter not to interfere or contact the trustees.
Who is liable for damage to my car?
Is there anything I can do in this matter to have it made smaller or removed?
I red your write-up on PMR 33 and there was no letter of concent sent or notice, it just happened, the morning the contractor started, they sent a letter to say it is happening?
thanks
Tommy
good day
I hope you are well.
I hope this is not a duplicate as my previous mail gave an error.
I am a home owner of a unit in a sectional title scheme.
Our Body Corp just had some new speed humps erected, and they are extremely large, to an extend most cars get stuck on this. I mailed them and asked to have it sorted out and was told I am not allowed to interfere with the decision of the trustees.
As a Owner don’t I have a say?
I read your article regarding the PMR33 and
1. I did not receive a notice
2. I did not gave consent
3. it is not according to spec as it damages about 58 out of the 81 unit’s cars.
Whom is liable for charges for the damage caused to my car?
hope to hear from you soonest.
kind regards
Tommy Dickson