Invoiced for Plumbing Work to My Balcony Which Isn't Cause for Leak Issue

Lcodyy on 14/06/2017 - 18:48

Hi,

I own a top floor apartment and the apartment below me has a leak. The owner below had a plumber attend his apartment and check it out then came upstairs and asked if he could have a look at my balcony. I let him thinking I was being a good guy - he said my balcony gutter is blocked and proceeded to pour acid down it clearing the blockage.

A month later I receive an invoice from the Owners Corp saying I owed $400 for the work and the plumbing report stated the following:
- Inspecting leak area in apartment below
- tenant advised leak only whilst it rains
- inspected unit above and balcony (mine)
- found drain from balcony was blocked and overflowing into ceiling space below
- cleared blockage
- packed up site

Fast forward to today where I received another call from the plumber asking to gain access to my apartment to inspect my apartment. I said no as apparently the problem was my balcony which has been unblocked and I'm up for $400.

I called the Owners Corp who stated there's an ongoing issue with the building's stormwater drainage. A report was compiled and action plan put in place.
The findings were that the drainage system isn't built to handle the flow of storm water when it rains. This is going to be assessed and attempts to fix it from 21/06. Also in the report it stated that personal balconies may not have been properly waterproofed during construction/before being tiled.

My questions:
1. Am I liable for that $400 considering I was not given any heads up about the issue until the plumber knocked on my door at 7.30am, and now subsequently it turns out the initial work had nothing to do with the leak?
2. Am I required to allow plumbers into my apartment and if so who is required to pay for the inspection/investigation?
3. The body corporate is having their plumber attend to give quotes regarding waterproofing of balconies - can I decline that and have my own contractor attend and waterproof and retile my balcony?

Thanks

Home & Garden

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 14/06/2017 - 19:03
    +1

    the balcony might be classed as common property.

    • codyy on 14/06/2017 - 19:26

      It most definitely is not.

  • pjetson on 14/06/2017 - 19:05
    +2

    If you didn't engage the plumber, I don't see why you'd have to pay. There may be something in your owner's corp agreement, though.

    • codyy on 14/06/2017 - 19:26

      By my agreement I assume you mean the Section 32?

      • pjetson on 14/06/2017 - 20:14

        No, I mean the rules of the body corporate, which I assume you have a legal agreement with.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/06/2017 - 20:24

    balconies are common property unless they are changed through your strata scheme

    • dasher86 on 14/06/2017 - 21:00

      OP is from Melbourne - balconies are not common property.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/06/2017 - 20:25

    moral of the story, it's not your problem

  • endotherm on 14/06/2017 - 22:31
    +2

    The owner below engaged the services of a plumber to check out problems on his property. The plumber asked to have a look at your property. He chose to do some work that you didn't ask for nor authorised for him to do. At best you should have been advised of any fault on your property and it would be up to you to do something about it at a time, with a tradesman of your choosing. You shouldn't have to pay for work you didn't authorise, from a tradesman you did not engage. Somehow the downstairs owner has made it an Owners Corp issue and liability, and they are trying to make you pay for a debt incurred by them at their authorisation. They are already aware there's an ongoing issue with the building's stormwater system, which seems to be ineffective/sub-standard anyway. Since the Owners Corp is involved, I would think it would be viewed as an admission they are taking responsibility for the building-wide drainage issue, in which case it is an Owners Corp problem. If the problem is confined to your balcony and therefore your property, they have no business getting involved. The fact that they are involved would be a pretty good indication that they think they are liable.

  • stephd on 02/07/2017 - 11:51

    I am having a similar problem and came upon this post. Have you been able to rectify the problem?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join