Hello fellow owners,

I'm writing about the unresolved motion 5.

My tenants received a surprise $4000 water bill. My agent contacted VCBS, who informed my agent there were no unusual events, and suggested we organise our own plumber to investigate. (Note: this was 28th October, a month after the carpark leak repair.)

We called in an independent plumber who reported that the 'mains water supply line to the property had been recently renewed' and to follow up with Body Corporate.

My agent forwarded the water bill to VCBS, and as the due date was coming up without getting a response, asked for the plumber's report, which is required to request a bill reduction from the water utility. VCBS could not provide a plumber's report, so my agent made the request with limited information. We are still waiting for a plumber's report.

However, recently, Leon has asked me personally to pay for the repair and water leak.

Leon has forwarded me the Blue Diamond plumbers invoice that was accepted and paid on my behalf. It says that a pipe burst under the carpark driveway, and the plumber needed jackhammers to expose the pipe, and after repairing the pipe, to drill in starter bars and lay a concrete mesh, re-concrete the hole, and clean up and dispose concrete rubble. The pipe repair was only a small component.

In motion 5, the added phrase "or by a service specific to one lot" seems to apply specifically only to electricity and water lines in common property, outside the control of the owner.

I strongly suggest that the phrase "or by a service specific to one lot" is removed to avoid individual owners being responsible for events or actions on common property, outside of the owner's control.

Some examples where this can end up non-sensical or unfair outcomes include:

• a water pipe embedded in common property concrete fails under heavy thoroughfare in the driveway but the owner is liable despite having no access to the pipe or ability to inspect or maintain it
• an electrical cable serving one lot runs through common property and is damaged during unrelated works, yet the owner is held responsible for a fire caused by a damaged cable
• emergency works are approved and carried out on common property without consulting the owner, but the costs are later retroactively assigned to that owner

In all of these cases, the owner has no practical ability to prevent the issue, choose a repair method, or manage costs.

For better clarity, and to avoid future disputes of this nature, I believe Motion 5 should clearly assign responsibility for services located within or under common property to the owners corporation, regardless of whether they serve one or multiple lots.

Best Regards,