[NSW Unit Sale] Screwed over by Incompetent Strata. Legal Standing?

Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 14:36
Last edited 15/02/2019 - 14:51 by 1 other user

We recently sold an apartment (investment) for 870,000. Cooling off period is fast approaching. The buyer did a building and strata and were happy to go ahead. They spoke to our strata manager today who advised them our unit has defects "which the owners has refused to have fix" and scarmongered them with upcoming landscaping levies (which haven't even been raised or voted on yet)

Buyer indicated that based on the talk with strata, they were going to walk. With all these apparently expenses, they would reduce their offer to 840k or walk away. Agent spoke to strata (who is a complete idiot) and they claimed a different a different set of events but did acknowledged they possibly "forgot" to say that our unit was exempt from the defects which affect many other units.

Our Agent has proposed an offer of 860k to keep the buyer … naturally I am not happy that we have to give up 20k based on misleading and incorrect information from the strata manager. We are acquiring written reports of the conversations from both parties.

Are we likely to be successful if we sue Strata for the price reduction amount, as it was directly as a result of their incompetence and incorrect advice?

YES, given there are no issues with the unit we could just not accept the lower price, but then we lose our 2-3 weeks of prime advertising time and risk Strata (profanity) with our next buyer too. Given that it was an investment and subject to CGT, we'd be sacrificing about half the difference in tax anyhoo, which minimises the actual property loss making the reduction a little easier to swallow.

As a first property buyer, I would also be spooked if Strata advised me what our buyer was advised and want a discount. Which means asking for 870 may scare them off.

Financial

Comments

  • dcep on 15/02/2019 - 14:41
    +3

    you can sue anyone/whatever you like, just a matter of time/costs/chances

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 14:51

      Updated question

    • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 19:32

      Nope. You must have cause and suffered damages.
      Questionable in this case.

      • miarn on 03/03/2019 - 13:56

        Nope. You can sue anyone for anything. The question is whether you'll win.

  • neil on 15/02/2019 - 14:51
    +10

    Why don't you just provide the correct advice to buyer? Get Strata to draft a letter or even go on a conference call.

    I don't know the law in NSW but if the buyer pulls out you would get your deposit back right? So wouldn't that offset the costs you presented?

    P.S. I've just joined my Owners Corp Committee. OC management companies are really the wild west.

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 14:53
      +1

      The buyer is being provided with correct advice now. But as a first home buyer, is now spooked that the unit and block will need extensive works, hence the adjusted offer.

      Yes, if they walk, we get to keep 1800-2000$, which would cover mortgage during that time, but we've also been 3 weeks off market and any other buyers who were interested 3 weeks ago may have moved on or curious as to they the sale didn't go ahead and be weary of making an offer.

      • neil on 15/02/2019 - 14:58
        +6

        But realistically, the buyer could have come up with any reason to pull out and given they now have the correct information, then doesn't seem you have any leg to stand on with the OC management.

        I wouldn't have reduced the price at all. That's just playing into the sellers hand and could be a negotiation tool. If they do accept $10k lower, wouldn't you need to draw up new contracts (+ fees) and have another 5 day cooling off period?

        • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 15:01

          It'd be unconditional, and my solicitor doesn't charge fees for revisions

      • sagrules on 15/02/2019 - 15:48
        +1

        I thought you get to keep the deposit, which is 5-10% of the purchase price/offer.
        Also, is the buyer a friend of the strata manager? I just can't see why the strata manager would be getting involved into a sale within your building and provide "advice" of this nature. What was the length of time it took you to find this buyer? If it wasn't long maybe you could hold out for another, but that is a risk in itself.
        Also, your agent wouldn't care if you sold it for $840k or $870k as the commission as a percentage would be couple hundred dollars difference

        • neil on 15/02/2019 - 15:59
          +1

          Seems like it's .25% of purchase price. $2,175. I'd think that's enough to cover the couple of weeks off the market and enough to put a buyer off from pulling out of contract.

          • sagrules on 15/02/2019 - 16:07

            @neil: Thanks for the info, will keep this in mind next time I am looking to buy a property.
            Also, opp should request the 66W form for future offers to avoid this situation.
            Maybe the buyer could not get finance approval for the original amount

            • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 16:12
              +3

              @sagrules: For those playing at home, 66W waives the cooling off period. Auctions do not have cooling off periods, and auctions unless sold prior also follow auction rules (no cooling off) Get your B&P Reports before you attack an auction

            • SmiTTy on 15/02/2019 - 20:42
              +4

              @sagrules: Buyer won't sign any 66w for no reason, cooling off period is there for the buyer. There needs to be a compelling reason to sign a 66w (significantly reduced price eg)

      • ihbh on 15/02/2019 - 20:41

        3 weeks off market

        I realise lending criteria are tougher, but how long did you extend the cooling off period from the normal 5 business days?

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 15:03

      Good stuff joining the Owners Corp. I've seen so many poor decisions being agreed to in the notes… but the apartment is a good 2 hours away in peak and all the meetings are held in peak. =/

  • djkelly69 on 15/02/2019 - 14:52
    +3

    You probably would have an action in negligence if you could prove the above, but it would likely cost a lot more than $10k and a long time to run. You would also have an obligation to mitigate your damages, which would probably require you to push harder for the original price and/or seek more buyers. The couple of weeks it costs you is going to be pretty hard to quantify.

    I think best course of action is to gather your evidence, and then send a request to the strata business owner seeking some sort of compensation (unlikely), or at least a letter confirming your unit is not subject to/liable for whatever which you or the agent can provide to the buyer.

  • Seraphin7 on 15/02/2019 - 14:54
    +2

    Clearly a matter for your solicitor. As noted above, you can launch legal proceedings against anyone, anytime … but only your solicitor will be able to advise on the most appropriate course of action considering the complete circumstances of this matter.

  • HighAndDry on 15/02/2019 - 14:58
    +9

    This is…. complex, so take my final recommendation with a giant grain of salt.

    If the issues with units in the building are issues which affect common property (basically any structural issue), all owners would be liable to contribute to the costs of rectifying them, even if your individual unit is not directly affected, so your strata manager may not actually have been completely wrong, depending on what they actually said. (Issue 1)

    The strata manager is also free to state their opinion as to potential events in the future, like the striking of landscaping levies if they're actually possible, likely, or expected. (Issue 2)

    In both cases, there'd be no real liability on their part unless they were factually incorrect in what they said to a degree that's negligent or reckless. So possibly in case of Issue 1, unlikely in case of Issue 2.

    Having said all that - that's between you and strata. Between you and the buyer, this is just normal bargaining and unfortunately in Sydney, it's almost totally a buyer's market. There's no shortage of owners wanting to sell, prices are free-falling, and considering both the market and the royal commission's effects on lending, there are far fewer buyers wanting, or able to, enter the market now compared to before.

  • chumlee on 15/02/2019 - 15:07
    +2

    Legal action is always expensive though. You could spend more than you recover

  • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 15:09
    +3

    I did speak to a Solicitor before I posted, pending more information from the buyer and strata.

    They said (without looking in depth to the situation)

    a) Strata talking about upcoming levies is not an issue. They may have a more pessimistic view of the building than you do.
    b) If Strata has been making representations that WE did something wrong or are trying to deceive the buyer, then there's a case for that

    H&D: Acknowledged, hoping this works into our favour over the next few weeks (re buyers market and sadly why we're likely to accept lower price to keep them)

    Hmmm hmm hmmmmmmm

    edit: Why post if you've already spoke briefly to a solicitor… to see if anyone else has had a similar sitch and get more info on winning… or losing.

    • Tems on 18/02/2019 - 19:07

      Ideally strata never talk to anyone who is not an owner. Surprised your strata spoke to the buyers. When we bought our first apartment in nsw strata totally refused to talk to us till the sale did not go through.

  • MITM on 15/02/2019 - 15:45
    +4

    Well done to the OC for devaluing everyone's property potentially by $30k.

    • whooah1979 on 16/02/2019 - 10:18
      +1

      It is good time to be a buyer.

  • Richardc on 15/02/2019 - 15:54
    +3

    Time to change strata?

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 16:11
      +1

      Sure is.

    • neil on 15/02/2019 - 16:24

      The biggest issue I've found and I wonder if it's the case in the OP's, is how many properties each OC manager is managing. We changed ours recently and they had a ratio of 1:90. You can imagine they missed numerous things and were slow to respond to matters. In the OP's case, imagine you manage 90 properties and a prospective buyer calls you on the phone to ask for information on one of the properties & one unit. Are you going to recall all the details of which units are affected by which issues? Probably not unless you a very good memory & notes.

      • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 16:28
        +4

        They shouldn't be answering unless they have notes, details in front of them =/

        • [Deactivated] on 17/02/2019 - 08:22

          Yes, it seems reasonable person who was reasonably/sufficiently competent in that role, should have not given info out to buyer without being sure. Especially, if they knew the unit was sold, and that they were talking to the buyer during cooling off period. Surely given the potentially impact of any false or misleading info given out, they should have at least, checked. Ie. Even if the stata didn't know the exact amount involved, they knew it was a 'significant amount' .

          I mention the 'reasonable person' as that is what negligence law is based around. Not sure if this matter would fall under negligence or under something else.

  • qwerty on 15/02/2019 - 16:24
    -2

    This is exactly what the cooling off period is used for - for the buyer and their solicitors to find any potential issues with the property.

    A potential landscaping levy and defects on similar units devalues your unit and had the buyer of known about them before buying i doubt they would have gave you the 870 - which is why they are negotiating a lower price now .

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 16:30
      +5

      I disagree, ongoing building works are a part of units. Everything 'potentially' will need to be done. But telling a buyer there are a bunch of outstanding defects when there isn't… not cool.

    • Kaz0551 on 15/02/2019 - 16:32
      +1

      Worth noting, buyer DID get a building report which said everything was fine except for some rising damp (which was just grout, not rising damp) agent with out with the buyer's relo the next day and clarified it was grout and they were happy at original price. It was only after being misled by Strata did they drop their price.

      • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2019 - 09:56
        +1

        Is there going to be a special levy. I'd walk away anyway knowing that the building has major defects.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 18:10
    +1

    Strata is definitely liable for damage.

    Gathering evidence may be difficult but if you can corroborate the buyer's report with the strata's comments, it's an open a shut case.

    1. Strata informing a complete stranger about potential works before informing members of the owners corp, and the stranger being that with conflicting financial interest to a member of the owners corp is plainly wrong.

    2. Potential works, if anything, should only be discussed with owners because potential work isn't defined in any manner. Adding a golden phalus to the entrance at the owner's cost is potential work.

    3. Incorrect report that damages the value of your property is categorically damage.

    Your owners corp should meet and get rid of this strata manager post haste at the very least.

    • qwerty on 15/02/2019 - 19:43

      I am pretty sure by law they are required to provide the information to buyers if requested by a solicitor

      https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/stra…

      • providing strata information certificate to prospective purchasers within 14 days of written request

      which would be a S184 certificate

      that would provide information about levys and future works so your argument 1 and 2 and invalid

      3 is the only real issue

      • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 19:49
        +3

        providing strata information certificate to prospective purchasers within 14 days of written request

        Strata information. Prospective work never discussed with the owners corp is not information. The strata manager does not own the building. They only represent the collective of owners.

        If the owners have never heard of these "potential" works, strata is baselessly speculating. If that's the case, there's nothing stopping strata from telling a potential buyer that potentially, there needs to be a million dollar sinking fee for potential works.

        If strata is going to put forth a suggestion, that suggestions needs to be with the owners, not a prospective buyer.

        • qwerty on 15/02/2019 - 21:30
          -1

          Section 184 certificate

          Section 7 - Proposals for funding matters set out in the 10 year capital works plan

          That would include prospective work and repairs

          • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 21:49
            +1

            @qwerty:

            scarmongered them with upcoming landscaping levies (which haven't even been raised or voted on yet)

            Incase you didn't read this OP's comments.

            If prospective work includes landscaping issues that hasn't been raised, and the buyer has seen the landscape and was happy to continue, the strata can essentially say anything.

        • Tems on 18/02/2019 - 19:12

          Correct. A solicitor can request the strata report and the annual general meeting minutes are what is given to the buyer. Strata is not authorized to discuss about your property with a complete stranger only official reports can be requested by a solicitor. I this case strata clearly discussed which is wrong.

    • whooah1979 on 16/02/2019 - 10:22

      Strata is definitely liable for damage.

      How much damage are we talking about here?

      • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2019 - 10:29
        +3

        Depends on the evidence but I'll be assessing the damage as whatever is the reduction in my sale price.

        I'd also be informing the other owners of their potential damage. Or maybe use that as leverage for a settlement with strata.

        Proving the damage is a different matter and can be downright impossible if the strata conveyed everything verbally.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 19:49

    Oops. Wrong reply

  • Donaldhump on 15/02/2019 - 20:11

    How do the defects not effect your unit,

  • SmiTTy on 15/02/2019 - 20:44

    Give them a letter from strata giving them the correct details. Or maybe you need a strata report or something (not sure).. U may even want to consider paying for this.

    If they're still not happy let them walk away, keep the deposit.

    I wouldn't drop the price by 10k. Let the agent work for his commission

    • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 21:11
      +5

      The buyer is already spooked. The vendor says one thing, the strata contradicts. The owner comes back with corrections and then the strata corroborates.

      It's all very fishy if you look at it from the buyer's view. Realistically, you cannot salvage the situation.

      Lowering the unit price by $30k sets a price expectation on the other units.

      I wouldn't be paying the strata manager another cent.

      • SmiTTy on 15/02/2019 - 21:30

        Agree.. But that's why the seller shouldn't provide anymore hearsay evidence. Its profession building reports and formal strata reports etc . As a seller if he/she wants to try to push the sale, they may consider forking out some money to produce these for the buyer - but that's as far as I'd go in terms of expenses out of your own pocket.

  • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2019 - 22:45
    +2

    I would contact a solicitor (which you already have) and have them send a letter demanding the price difference as compensation (they will probably not respond but they will speak to their solicitor), this would at least get their attention and if they speak to the buyer again, hopefully they will be a bit more professional.

  • bunkymag on 16/02/2019 - 10:37
    +5

    first home buyer
    $870k unit

    Yowza..

    • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2019 - 10:54
      +3

      Higher yield investment.

      • Nebargains on 17/02/2019 - 15:12

        Or maybe just anyone with a suitable deposit and incomes that can service the mortgage?

      • HighAndDry on 17/02/2019 - 18:02
        +2

        I'm wondering if this is implying only Asians are rich/disciplined enough to save up that much for a first home…

  • Sofie519 on 16/02/2019 - 12:52
    +3

    Suing Strata company is futile since you can't prove what was said, and they are likely to have the Owners Corporation indemnify them behind the Agency contract, thus it becomes either a cost for the owners corporation either way. The strata manager also has a responsibility to disclose, and the Buyer has every reason to reconsider after they conduct a strata inspection report. You really should be more open about this as this happens a lot, and if you were the buyer you would be conducting the same due diligence before sinking $870k into an investment.

    Given that the Strata Inspection report revealed that there are building repairs that is needed and not yet done, the buyer has a right to renegotiate, but keep these down to facts. What was the expected cost of the rectification and how much would your unit's share of the cost be? Are there funds in strata to pay for it? In fact if there are excess funds in strata, most people forget to price that into the sale. This is reasonable negotiation if you are serious in selling.

    An additional levy for landscaping that has not happened yet or been voted upon as to whether or not it would happen, is like saying they want a price reduction for the future cost in renovating your unit. They failed to also take into account that, in most if not all cases the increase in value to the property outweighs the cost contributed to the new landscaping. So could you go back to them and as for more money in that case?

  • whooah1979 on 16/02/2019 - 13:14
    +2

    We recently sold an apartment

    This should be under contract.

    • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2019 - 14:24
      +2

      jv, that you?

    • Sofie519 on 17/02/2019 - 22:44

      OP clearly stated that its in cooling off period. So Exchange with 10% deposit hasn't happened. The buyer made an offer, seller accepted, a holding deposit of .25% is paid, and the buyer is doing their due diligence. Buyer can pull out and lose .25% or re-negotiate

      • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 11:12

        It's still "under contract", the purchaser just has the ability to pull out of the contract.

  • littlemisslovely on 16/02/2019 - 23:20
    +6

    I’d do a bit of the reverse - tell the Buyers that THEY need to write a stat dec saying what the Strata said and then give them the 10K discount once you have this letter - advise them that based on this letter they provide you will then launch legal proceedings against strata for ?defamation / lost earnings etc…

    I’m guessing Buyers will
    A) not want to upset strata as it’s their new strata
    B) might have exaggerated and not be willing to write a stat dec

    .. on top of that I’d get a letter from Strata advising your apartment is fine.
    Essentially call their bluff

    • whooah1979 on 17/02/2019 - 01:16
      +1

      defamation

      How is this defamation?

    • vetopower on 17/02/2019 - 18:20
      +5

      LOL. Buyer has all the power.

      They can walk away, lose a measly $1.8K deposit and buy a similar/better property for a similar/better price in a few weeks.

      Prices are dropping by thousands of dollars each week.

      OP is sweet out of luck.

      • littlemisslovely on 17/02/2019 - 21:38

        Defamation not the right word - but if the Strata has wrongly lost the buyers I’m sure there is legal recourse?

        And as someone that has recently bought, there is so much time effort and energy involved in buying a property. Maybe it’s in a good school zone, maybe their work or parents are nearby (eg childcare) or maybe they have a friend in the building - whatever the case they selected that apartment, (probably told all their friends too) so they are not going to want to lose it after all that effort. They are already invested so I’d do what I could to keep them. Buying a property has a lot more involved than just the $

        • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 11:13

          Depends on if they, in fact and legally, "wrongly" lost OP the sale.

  • Traveller107 on 17/02/2019 - 00:40

    Not certain where your property is but I'm a bit surprised people are spending 870k on units in this market. If the property market is still OK where your property is then you can be a bit stubborn with price and ask them to provide written advice from strata regarding the issues else it doesn't count.. If the market has crashed like in plenty of places then you might wanna consider their revised offer.

    • codinghelloworld on 18/02/2019 - 14:17

      I recently saw someone paid 600k for one bed room apartment and other paid 800k for 2 bed room apartment. Both without garage. Unbelievable.

  • justinh93 on 17/02/2019 - 09:38
    +2

    I am a part of a body corporate business.

    If there is a building defect report that was done on your apartment or common property, I would provide this to the buyer to prove that the strata manager was misleading on the phone. In addition to that, I'd check the owners corporation certificate that the manager provided to the agent and see whether they have included any contingent liabilities regarding building defects or other repairs. If you are able to get it in writing that the buyer reduced the offer as a result of misleading information that was provided by the manager then it would certainly be worth talking to a lawyer.

    As an aside, I would never provide prospective buyers with any other information than what is already included in the AGM minutes and owners corporation certificate which is in the S32

    • [Deactivated] on 18/02/2019 - 00:38

      s 32? You're in Victoria. They're in NSW - different rules bro. No OC Certificate in NSW. It's all jungle up here.

  • syousef on 17/02/2019 - 09:39
    +4

    Last I checked 870k - 860k is 10k not 20k.

  • Herbse on 17/02/2019 - 11:09
    +3

    Selling houses must really be a struggle at the moment if this is what people are resorting to to keep buyers

    It used to be the seller who would make the decision on who would buy their house.

    • vetopower on 17/02/2019 - 18:22
      +2

      Market has completely shifted. Buyers' market.

      People like OP are going to get taken for a ride in this market.

      Low ball offers, walking away from offers once something better comes along, hard negotiations, etc etc.

      • Herbse on 17/02/2019 - 18:26
        +3

        This is what happens when people use housing as money makers. Leads to a bubble and people get hurt.

        Very sad

        • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 11:13

          Property is an asset like any other asset.

          • Herbse on 18/02/2019 - 11:18
            +3

            @HighAndDry: Its always been a long term asset. And only worth if holding on for 20+ years.
            The past decade has seen people using them for short term gains and tax benefits, sp the demand inflated prices temporarily.

            • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 11:19

              @Herbse: Nothing says an asset has to be long term or short term - you can speculate short- or long-term on any asset. Assets are assets. All these labels you're trying to ascribe to them are basically all imaginary - all that's actually real is that "it is something which has value". That's it.

              • vetopower on 18/02/2019 - 12:06
                -1

                @HighAndDry: Property is not just an asset like any other asset.

                It is, unlike a tennis ball or a computer game, an essential human good. You cannot live a decent human life without one.

                • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 12:07

                  @vetopower:

                  You cannot live a decent human life without one.

                  So? Still an asset. Would it shock you to know that foodstuffs are also bought and traded as assets? Here, grains as an example:

                  https://www.asx.com.au/products/grains-derivatives.htm

                  • vetopower on 18/02/2019 - 12:09
                    -1

                    @HighAndDry: Where did I say that essential assets cannot be traded?

                    Learn to read.

                    The implication of my statement is that property should be treated differently to other assets to ensure equitable access to them.

                    Indeed, that's what governments already do. Planning laws, zoning laws, etc all treat property different from other assets to serve the public good.

                    • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 12:12

                      @vetopower:

                      The implication of my statement is that property should be treated differently to other assets to ensure equitable access to them.

                      And I'm saying you're wrong because other essentials like food are treated like any other asset that are bought and traded. Property being "essential" doesn't make it any more special than many other things which are bought and sold as investments - again like food. Or petrol.

                      Planning laws, zoning laws, etc all treat property different from other assets to serve the public good.

                      Also irrelevant. You have these kinds of laws and zoning regulations on things like liquor and gambling licences, neither of which are "essential".

                      Your entire premise is bunk. Property isn't treated differently because it's "essential".

                      • vetopower on 18/02/2019 - 16:06

                        @HighAndDry: I'm not sure why I bother, but for the education of others that might be reading and mistakenly think of property like any other asset.

                        A. Essential human goods are traded. No one is arguing otherwise.

                        B. Essential human goods are treated differently from other goods. This is both a descriptively true fact and a normatively desirable attribute.

                        That is why food is subject to special labelling laws and safety standards. That is why property is subject to special quality assurances such as planning laws.

                        C. HighAndDry has introduced what in argumentation is called a non-sequitur. Some laws are enacted for the public good (eg food safety laws, planning laws). It does not logically follow that all laws (eg liquor licences) are enacted for the public good. Different laws are enacted for different reasons.

                        • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 16:54
                          -1

                          @vetopower:

                          B. Essential human goods are treated differently from other goods. This is both a descriptively true fact and a normatively desirable attribute.

                          Again, this where you're wrong. This was part of the conversation further up:

                          This is what happens when people use housing as money makers. Leads to a bubble and people get hurt.

                          and

                          Property is not just an asset like any other asset.

                          By which the implication is that property, because it is an essential good, can not, or is not, or (somehow) should not, be traded or used as "money makers" (i.e. investments) like other goods. So going back to your point:

                          B. Essential human goods are treated differently from other goods. This is both a descriptively true fact and a normatively desirable attribute.

                          While this is technically true (every good is "different"), in the context of this conversation of property being being traded and used as investments, this is false. Essential goods are traded and used as investments very much the same as any other asset.

                          That something is an essential good instead of a luxury good, and associated differences like labelling and zoning laws, do not affect the ability of something to be traded or used as an investment.

  • field1985 on 17/02/2019 - 13:38
    +2

    Wow.. property sellers are getting really, really desperate. With the time wasted the value of your property has already dropped by more then their offer did. If I was you I would take the $840k offer and run for your life. It will be worth less then $800k if you try to sell it again because the property market values are falling off a cliff.

  • mreddie on 17/02/2019 - 16:14
    +1

    Take it to your solicitor not ozB

  • HeWhoKnows on 17/02/2019 - 19:27
    +1

    First of all I say to OP…STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

    OP doesnt know what strata said or what the buyer said.
    Its all "here say"
    Furthermore you dont know if your buyer misunderstood or misinterpreted anything the strata manager said.
    The written reports prove nothing. Again its all here-say.
    There is no recording on either side so no proof of anything.
    And I doubt your buyer could be bothered as they have nothing to gain.

    This is why buyers obtain a formal written strata report and if the buyer was happy with that then something else has changed.

    "The buyer did a building and strata and were happy to go ahead."

    Your strata manager is obliged to disclose any known defects and known special levies.
    But this should have been in the strata report.

    Id say the buyer got cold feet for some other reason and just made up this excuse.
    OP will end up crucifying himself instead!

    Just chill out and let it go.

    Your buyer changed his mind and there is nothing you can do about it.
    This happens all the time so expect it to happen again and definitely dont blame your strata manager.
    You need your strata manager on-side my friend!

    The next offer could be more that this one so just relax!

    • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 11:13
      +1

      *hearsay

      • [Deactivated] on 18/02/2019 - 13:09
        +1

        *heresy

        • HighAndDry on 18/02/2019 - 14:04
          +1

          From comment:

          OP will end up crucifying himself instead!

          Heresy? Checks out.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/02/2019 - 00:54
    +3

    Note you don't just own the apartment (mostly a parcel of stratified air) - you also own the building in common with others.

    If the defects relate to that common property, then there is a liability that effectively attaches to you personally as a member of the Owners Corporation (OC). That is if these defects can be brought home to the OC, and impact levies, then you're involved and it's arguable the OC Manager hasn't done anything especially wrong.

    But if individual owners are liable for some defect within their apartments, then you may well have a case against the OC Manager including in negligence given they have a duty to you and have breached the standard of a reasonably competent OC Manager. Good luck with that.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/02/2019 - 12:46
      +1

      Hi TheGhostWhoWalks, love your work.

      Something else i thought of is they did end up correcting it. So the buyer may not be influenced by the suggestion there were faults connected with your particular apartment. However faults within other apartments can and will affect others, in that the sale price will be compromised as a result, and this will influence the re-sale value of yours.

      So if an apartment sells for $850k with faults, that may impact the sale price of your apartment even though it has no faults. I for one would be cautious buying into a building where apartments have faults whether it's connected with common property or not.

      I think on balance the opportunity for a claim are limited, especially given the complicated reasoning you'll need to mount.

      • HeWhoKnows on 22/02/2019 - 11:21
        +1

        Not a bad argument from a "ghost"

  • abb on 18/02/2019 - 10:58
    +1

    We recently sold an apartment (investment) for 870,000.

    Our Agent has proposed an offer of 860k to keep the buyer … naturally I am not happy that we have to give up 20k

    So is it a 10k or 20k discount?

    The buyer is entitled to make any offer they want for any reason they want. Hell, even "I didn't get on with the strata manager" or "the strata guy doesn't know what he's talking about" would be plenty justification for lowering their offer.

    Sounds like it's sell for 860k this week or 840k in 3 weeks, your call…

  • dealbreaker on 18/02/2019 - 15:53

    You wont get anywhere taking them to court. I would be asking to speak to the strata managers boss and make sure they get their ass kicked, at lease so it doesn't happen again.

    • HeWhoKnows on 22/02/2019 - 11:25

      Strata manager has done NOTHING WRONG.
      More likely OP will get his arse kicked and have minimal co-operation from the strata manager going forward.
      That is not a good outcome just because the buyer changed their mind for some reason but not necessarily for the reason they stated.

      After all The buyer was initially satisfied with the strata report.
      So something lese has changed.
      Buyers make up excuses for withdrawing all the time and thats all they are. Excuses.

  • scrone on 18/02/2019 - 18:28
    +1

    Probably as weak a case as you can get - duty of care issues, weak connection to damage etc.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/02/2019 - 00:03

    Shaky.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join