By Prof Graham Paddock
A1. Tell the managing agent that the damage within your section is the direct result of the body corporate’s failure to maintain the common property roof. So even if you would be otherwise liable for the excess payment in terms of PMR 29(4), you would have a claim against the body corporate for the amount because your liability to pay it arises from the body corporate’s failure to carry out its statutory duty to keep the roof in good repair.
Graham
Owner wants to move kitchen window frame
Q2.1. In the complex I manage, one of the owners is in the process of renovating his entire unit by replacing all tiles and redoing his kitchen and bathrooms (he practically gutted his whole unit). In this process, he has removed the entire kitchen window and intends replacing the same frame but in a different position to be able to fit additional cupboards in the kitchen. Should the trustees allow this? Does LM approval need to be acquired? This change will not affect the complex aesthetically.
A2.1. If this window frame is in the section’s boundary wall, as I assume it to be, this proposed alteration involves a change to the common property and this must not be done without the trustees’ written consent, as required by PCR 4(1) – click here to see it (link available to members only).
If the trustees do approve it, I suggest that they make very sure that the work to the common property is well done and that the owner is responsible for its quality.
Q2.2. It has now come to light that the intention of the owner is not just to move the position of the window, but to replace the existing window with a much smaller window. Do the trustees have the authority to approve this change to the common property or does this need a special resolution? The window is not really visible as it is enclosed in the garage, which was originally built as a carport, but now the owner wants to enclose it. Does this infringe on any municipal restriction in terms of the original plans?
A2.2. The replacement of a large window with a smaller one, in isolation, is unlikely to require local municipality building survey approval, but perhaps it is best to call and check.
But my reading of your last posting is that this “minor” amendment to the common property is in fact part of the enclosure of a carport, so that it will now be part of the interior living space. This would require amended building plans because carports are not designed to be enclosed.
In addition, if the enclosure of the carport adds to the floor area of the section so that it can, for example, be used as a laundry, storeroom or extended living area, it is a section extension and the owner needs to follow the process in section 24 of the Act, ending up with an amended sectional plan showing the increased area as part of the section.
Please check these aspects.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 6, Issue 11, Page 4
Professor Graham Paddock is now only available to answer questions on the discussion forum for Community Members of Paddocks Club. Get all your questions answered by joining Graham on this community platform. Join Paddocks Club at www.paddocksclub.co.za.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Archives
- 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
Recent Comments