How do the bottoms of balconies get to look like this?
Or balustrades rusted like this? If you think this is an exception, visit the blog of Woodstream Lofts and scroll through the pictures.
In contrast, the Sectional Title Act obliges a body corporate—the owners/members collectively—"to establish for administrative expenses a fund sufficient in the opinion of the body corporate for the repair, upkeep, control, management and administration of the common property (including reasonable provision for future maintenance and repairs), for the payment of rates and taxes and other local authority charges for the supply of electric current, gas, water, fuel and sanitary and other services to the building or buildings and land, and any premiums of insurance, and for the discharge of any duty or fulfillment of any other obligation of the body corporate" (Section 37[a]).
A body corporate that fails to provide for sufficient funding for proper maintenance is in violation of the Act.
What can an individual owner do if her/his investment is in jeopardy as result of neglect of fellow owners? There are options to pursue.
In response to Giovanni Camara Da Costa comment below, “What happens when the deterioration of the Common Property damages an Owners Section? Should the cost still be split 50/50?”, herewith my response:
Firstly, an owner is a member of the body corporate (BC), the collective of owners.
The BC is obliged to hold annual general meetings (AGM) each year, where the draft budget for the new financial year is tabled for approval of members. The prescribed agenda also makes provision for directives to the incoming trustees.
If all owners left common property to deteriorate then collectively they are guilty an accountable to one another about neglect.
If one or more specific owners incur damage sue to deterioration of common property and none of them ever did anything to address the situation, then none of them have a leg to stand on to expect the collective to share in the costs of damages they incurred.
However, there is documentary evidence that an owner alerted the collective and the collective by majority vote opted to let it be, then the owner concerned—in my opinion—has the right to expect of the collective to incur the costs of damage.
Responsibility works two-ways!