| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:28 pm Post subject: B.C. CONDO LAW worse than legislation elsewhere? REFORMS? |
 |
|
Is B.C. legislation worse than condo law in other places?
| Quote: | | Yes, but don't take our word for it. For an excellent comparison of legislative schemes in other jurisdictions, go to CondoServe.com. Scroll down under Re-Sale Disclosure Requirements for references to reserve fund studies and estoppel certificates. Reserve fund studies provide an essential means of assessing a building’s maintenance and replacement needs. Reserve fund studies in conjunction with estoppel certificates operate to prevent strata owners from concealing defects and then surprising new buyers with them once the deal closes. |
So what's missing from our statute?
| Quote: | Other jurisdictions seem to be awake to the reality that inexpert consumers are simply not qualified to make such assessments. No. Nor is a professional pre-sale inspection likely to be conclusive in the absence of a technical building audit supplemented with evidence of regular maintenance and inspections. Other jurisdictions put accountability in the hands of those who hold themselves out as building professionals – where it belongs.
Even CMHC’s report, Building Technology, Wood-Frame Envelopes in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia recommends this approach. We will pursue this line further with a view toward legislative reform. |
Where can I learn more about technical building audits, professional reserve fund studies and other key features of condominium ownership?
| Quote: | We like the Law Society of Upper Canada Great Library link, where you can get at least get a rough idea of current condo issues under the Ontario statute. Search the database using the term, 'condominium,' which yields an annotated statute as well as materials from the most recent legal seminars at which lawyers discussed condo issues.
We’re trying to effect an interlibrary loan of Upper Canada CLE materials on condo law at Vancouver’s Courthouse Library. The 1987 Ontario materials, Current Concerns in Condominium Law, available only at the UBC Law Library, far outshine anything produced by the B.C. bar, in our view. Look especially at a piece by Jonathan H. Fine. Search the title at the catalogue here. Here is an excerpt: |
| Quote: | A technical audit is in essence an examination of the physical components of the building carried out by an engineering firm to identify any construction deficiencies, whether in the nature of unfinished work, defects in material or workmanship or structural defects. A technical audit is required by a new condominium corporation in order to properly pursue any claim under the New Homes Warranty Plan Act and/or a construction deficiency action.
A reserve fund study is essentially an examination of the building in order to identify its various components and determine the life expectancy of those components and the future expected repair and replacement costs thereof. A reserve fund study is required by a condominium corporation so that the board of directors can determine the proper amount that ought to be collected from the unit owners as part of the common expense in order to maintain the reserve fund at a proper level and thereby comply with s. 36 of the Act. Determining the amount of the contributions to the reserve fund using any other method would be mere guess work.
It is safe to say that the obtaining of a reserve fund study and technical audit in the first year of a condominium corporation’s existence has become a common if not a mandatory practice by industry standards. (at pgs. B-24-25) |
| Quote: | To be fair, the Barrett Commission included in Recommendation #55 (see p. 100 of Part Two, Volume II) the need for each strata corporation to keep among its records a maintenance manual, renewal plans and procedures specific to each multi-family building. However, the report failed to attach sufficient importance to these by not clarifying, for example, how these manuals and plans should come into being. Probably as a result of this, the legislation fails to include the recommendation except for the provision in s. 94 for a discretionary – not mandatory -- depreciation report, but it’s unlikely that many strata councils would agree to the considerable expense involved in the production of a technical audit and a reserve fund study if they are not adequately apprised of their importance.
We will try to provide a more in-depth review of the Ontario scheme once we’ve examined the new materials. Stay tuned. |
Our worldwide search for the best consumer protection features for condo owners continues:
| Quote: | | Roving watchdogs are on the prowl for sites that discuss the costs/benefits of reserve fund studies and other consumer protection features contained in the legislation of other jurisdictions. Check out Worldwide Condos and let us know if you’ve had experience with other legislative schemes. What worked? What didn't? We'd like to hear from you. Write to editor@bcccondos.ca. |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102#102 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's changed in B.C.'s condo legislation since our first post (above) in August, 2003?
As far as consumer protection is concerned, ZIP. If anything, even though there are many, many more condos, owners today have even less recourse to government when a dispute arises between owners. When we began this site, you could at least get a verbal answer from to an inquiry at the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate. Here's the advice B.C. Liberals at FICOM offered troubled condo owners on Nov. 14/05:
| Quote: | WE DO NOT:
. Give you an opinion on how to apply the Strata Property Act to your circumstances.
. Give advice relating to the Strata Property Act
. Tell you whether the actions of owners, tenants, strata councils or strata managers are a violation of the Strata Property Act.
. Interpret strata corporation bylaws or agreements
. Mediate or intervene in disputes between owners and strata councils, strata corporations or strata managers. |
Link to this entry
http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=720#720
Last edited by editor on Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:16 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Island condo association seeks condo law reform:
Our reply:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Deryk Norton
Cc: editor
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: Yes, BC Strata Law is Worse Than Elsewhere
Wow, way to get our day off the floor! ... Although, we have had our hopes raised like this before and nothing happens, which is why we suspect the proliferation of doomed housing is indeed a policy decision by the province - consumers are sacrificed to grease the new failed housing economy, which benefits the builders and those wealthy enough to use doomed housing as an investment, a group that includes plenty of lawyers, by the way, which may explain why legislative improvement has been so slow. That said, however, we'll have a look at the paper and see what we can add. Right off the top, we'd say:
1. Until there are no more tarps going up, building designers - engineers, architects or both - MUST as a condition of professional accreditation - TRACK the PERFORMANCE of ALL multi-unit housing construction for the predicted service life of EACH multi-unit condo complex. BCIT is free to test construction materials in its lab. That's fine, but bldg designers must track the performance of their work beginning at completion at least with respect to multi-unit housing until it ceases to fail so predictably. Really, bldg designers are the only people who can do this. It troubles me greatly that they have not yet taken it upon themselves to do so as a matter of public record. The fact that they haven't tells us pretty clearly that there is plenty more trouble ahead.
Such an obvious omission is especially reprehensible as we face the challenge of global warming. What's the carbon footprint of all these leakers, one wonders? The constant repair, renovate, rebuild, redevelop .... How many of us live in places less than 25 years old that have undergone two and sometimes three efforts at major repair? No, these characters have to start tracking their work in a meaningful way. They must first own the problem if we are to solve it. They owe it to the public as a condition to the privilege they enjoy as members of a profession just as lawyers owe the public various duties. More on them later.
2. Letters of assurance/technical bldg audits AND bldg developer/designer's leaker history MUST be registered on title at the Land Title office along with complete maintenance plans to guide the strata council in the care and feeding of the complex. How else can anyone come up with a reasonable strategy for bldg management? How else can buyers interpret strata minutes? How else can bldg designers and contractors limit their liability if the thing fails?
3. Until there are no more tarps, EACH development application for multi-unit housing province-wide MUST CONTAIN a complete list of all previous multi-unit housing builds by EACH MEMBER of the dvpmt team (no hiding behind new or numbered companies) along with a current performance review of EACH complex. It's getting very difficult to search A/E and developer histories at the B.C. Courts website, and why should owners/buyers have to work that hard, anyway? The leaky condo debacle is ultimately the product of the construction industry as countless leaky condo judgments at the courts website will attest. Unfortunately, the software no longer permits appropriate search limits at the courts site, which makes the search process extremely onerous, PLUS bders and A/Es are free post-leaky condo litigation to set up shop under a new name. Tricky, tricky. Such a lack of transparency allows outfits like Polygon whose leakers have cost the province millions to do it all again! Consumers might have a chance if this information was easily available to the public as a matter of law on development applications and not just confidentially to planning authorities, who are then free to take it into account or not. Human nature tells me that wherever there is discretion in these matters, there is most likely grift. Let's change the legislation to close those gaps.
4. And yes, bring on Ontario's (Alberta's is modelled after this) professional (can't be some amateur self-described inspector) MANDATORY regular RESERVE FUND STUDIES. They provide for regular complete professional inspections INCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT IS COLLECTIVELY OWNED INSIDE AND OUT as well as regularly updated plans for maintenance and repair. How else can strata councils create a reasonable funding/repair/replacement strategy? How else can buyers tell whether the strata corporation has been effectively managed?
5. Finally, the province MUST create an office similar to the excellent Residential Tenancy Office for condo owners! It must be staffed by people who are prepared to answer questions about condo ownership and management both orally and in writing. It is UNCONSCIONABLE to leave consumers at the mercy of investor owners and real estate fraudsters, none of whom have any interest in what it's actually like to live in their miserable commons - or worse - condo lawyers. Now, there's a group of characters... they're on EVERY side of the real estate transaction at the same time from the developer's incorporation to the final sale of the unit. Now, they're even allowed to act as realtors. It's got to stop! Somehow the law society steamrolled this one through a few years back. Attys felt realtors were getting a disproportionate slice of the pie when it's lawyers who give the sacred undertaking (giving them access to the actual money payment, which often gets them into trouble), so attys are now allowed to act as realtors, too, in the same transaction! This is INSANE! Consumers should NOT be taking legal advice from someone who's financially interested in the transaction in any way. PERIOD!
More later maybe. In the meantime, we'll post your e-mail and mtg details on the homepage ASAP.
Ed. |
| Quote: | | Note: We have neither read nor in any way endorsed any of the publications for sale at VISOA. We frankly dislike the notion of charging for information that is publicly available FREE, such as the Strata Property Act Instruction Guides, or that may or may not be accurate or even advisable. There is nevertheless wisdom in networking, and the Discussion Paper listed above is certainly in line with our views, though, as evident above, we would go much further. |
A last word about an old friend, res ipsa loquitur:
| Quote: | | One more thing we'd change about B.C. condo law - a re-introduction right in the statute of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) when a building fails before a reasonable, ISO-defined service life. Owners shouldn't have to pay TWICE for a leaker - first, the typically irrational sale price NOT IN ANY WAY tied to the presence or absence of a proper inspection/repair regimen, and a second time to the lawyers for arduous work involved in proving construction negligence. The Supreme Court of Canada in Fontaine v. British Columbia (Office Administrator) could not have contemplated the outrageous collusion by all levels of gov't with B.C.'s 'red-hot'real estate industry which has resulted in an as yet untracked, unchecked leaky condo crisis costing the country and the environment hugely. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1249#1249
Last edited by editor on Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:18 am; edited 19 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Report on condo law reform proposals expected later this spring:
| Quote: | From: Deryk Norton
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:26 PM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE: BC Lags Behind in Condo Ownership Protection
STRATA OWNERSHIP NEEDS BETTER LEGISLATION
April 2, 2008
According to strata owners on Vancouver Island there are major deficiencies in BC’s strata legislation. Over 458,000 condominiums and other strata properties, or one in four taxable properties in BC are affected by strata legislation. 67,000 of these properties are located on Vancouver Island.
A series of public meetings hosted by the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association (VISOA) was completed on March 30. At these meetings, participants reacted to a discussion paper based on numerous complaints VISOA had received about inadequate legal protection for strata owners. Based on the public meetings, written submissions from owners and consultation with homeowner associations on the mainland, VISOA is now developing a report on issues and alternatives for improving BC’s strata legislation. The report will be available later this spring.
Most concerns expressed by strata owners focused on transparency and accountability deficiencies, including:
Lack of an accessible and authoritative source of legislation interpretation to support the operation of strata corporations according to law,
Lack of a requirement for a depreciation report or reserve fund study to inform owners and purchasers of the financial implications of the condition of common property,
Lack of a requirement for an audit of strata finances even where the strata corporation has hundreds of thousands of dollars in a reserve fund, and
Lack of prosecution of developers operating contrary to strata legislation.
“Furthermore, VISOA research has found that BC lags behind other jurisdictions in requiring transparency and accountability for key areas of strata or condominium operations”, said Felicia Oliver, VISOA President.
VISOA is a non-profit organization that has provided information and education services to strata owners and strata councils on Vancouver Island since 1973.
BC’s strata legislation includes the Strata Property Act, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act and the Real Estate Services Act.
Deryk Norton
VISOA Board Member – Government Relations
Tel. (250) 743-8724
E-mail: dgnorton@telusplanet.net |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1287#1287 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our e-mail to VISOA:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Deryk Norton
Cc: editor
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: One thing we'd add to the report
Hello Earnest Law Reformists,
We''ve posted your update and would like to add a final issue to the list to be included in the report on statutory reform - bullying. Thanks to so many articulate visitors, we've recently identified still another gap in B.C. condo legislation - the failure to address bullying. The statute doesn't even mention it even though the Criminal Code was amended not long ago to include criminal harassment or stalking, as it's sometimes called. A special report commissioned in 1996 by the Justice Department of Canada affirms that criminal harassment may occur between bickering neighbors. Sure enough, after reviewing our Inbox, we found that most of the queries we've received have to do in one way or another with bullying - and no one's immune, it seems. We know of a former captain of industry who was literally bullied off his strata council, an 80-year-old senior who was hounded night and day by a neighbor's endless stream of personal complaints about her to the strata council, a bigshot accountant whose neighbors on council made him feel like a social pariah for demanding nothing more than a repair to which he was rightfully entitled.There's no doubt bullying is epidemic among strata owners. More on strata bullying and how to fight back.
Best of luck with the report and thanks to everyone for all your good work,
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1288#1288 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Report to include bullying, to be complete end of April:
| Quote: | From: Deryk Norton
To: editor
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: One thing we'd add to the report
Editor,
Thank you for your reply. Please rest assured that the report being prepared will contain proposals that will deal with "bullying" and the "strata Nazi". The focus of the report will be on transparency and accountability from which no owner, strata council member or developer should be exempt.
Also, in the interests of transparency, I must tell you that yesterday VISOA representatives made a presentation to the government caucus (more than 20 government members other than cabinet members) describing deficiencies in BC's strata legislation and highlighted some of the issues that will be included in VISOA's forthcoming report. We also reminded them of commitment of the Minister in 2003, as described in the attachment. (There are some 28 issues identified to VISOA by VI strata owners and interested persons in the lower mainland.)
The Caucus Whip promised that the report will be taken to the government when it is available (which we hope will be the end of April). I expect their interest in our presentation and report has something to do with the huge number of voters living in strata units (conservatively estimated to be 700,000) and an election coming in May, 2009. (emphasis added)
Several members were quite familiar with some of the issues and are looking for specific proposals. This is something we will provide in the report. However, we did state that there should be a public review of the legislation meaning wide consultation with strata owners. (emphasis added) VISOA does not pretend to have a monopoly in identifying strata issues and proposing solutions. Also, private back room discussions between Ministry of Finance officials and hand picked "stakeholders" from the real estate industry would not serve the interests of strata owners.
Have you heard anything about any other association or group consulting with strata owners or developing proposals for better legislation? We are open to working with willing partners on this intiative.
SIncerely,
Deryk Norton
VISOA |
Our reply:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Deryk Norton
Cc: editor
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: One thing we'd add to the report
Sounds great!
We've been hammering away at govt on these very same inclusions in our condo statute - esp professional reserve fund studies and the codification of CSA durability guidelines as non-optional prima facie requirements - since law school in 2001 when I discovered deep in the stacks that reserve fund studies formed the basis of Ontario's then condo law reform (see technical bldg audits first post http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102#102). I now read that the amt Ontario stratas are supposed to raise in the first year reserve fund is woefully inadequate (see http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=994#994). Would be good if FOR ONCE B.C. would benefit from the experiences of other jurisdictions!
Are other strata outfits similarly inclined? We thought when we started posting that providing the technical audit, reserve fund study 'missing link' would quickly galvanize owners and maybe even net us an interesting consulting job in the process. Hah! We thought there would at least be some interest in our results from probing similar condo construction issues throughout the Pacific Rim - New Zealand's weathertightness crisis, Australia's waterproffing crisis - and elsewhere. We were probably the first outfit to reveal the number of highrises failing just like low-rise wood-frames. Unfortunately, although many owners have been grateful over the years, building failures must happen too slowly for most people to notice and, much, much worse, there has just been too much money to be made on them by investors, who never actually live in these awful places. I'm still reeling from comments by some puffed-up %%#$! yoicks at a big construction law firm here - ugh! - at a toxic mold seminar a year ago. Something to this effect: 'And anyway, what's the problem? The market is such that I was able to sell my leaker for far more than I paid for it.' Until this changes - rich lawyer-developer-realtor teams profiting on the backs of bankrupt owners - OR some media darling takes up the green argument and actually measures the carbon footprint of our failed housing econonomy - it will be business as usual, I'm afraid.
The shorter answer: Certain groups have made presentations before various govt committees over the years but usually only on just one issue and most often an issue that's, frankly, irrelevant. For instance, it was heralded as a great victory when legislation changed to prevent the lack of a certain type of strata vote from providing any obstacle to much needed major repairs. Big deal. It did nothing to shift responsibility for the bldg failure onto those who built it. Somehow in the course of litigation, the real estate industry managed to shift the legal maxim of res ipsa loquitar (the thing speaks for itself) to 'he who asserts negligence must prove it.' Why? Since when is it OK to build houses that fail in the course of a single generation? It's just not fair in the wake of so many bldg failures. Then various political friends were appointed to some dubious outfit called the Homeowners Protection Office, which collects money to put contractors on a list of some kind no one monitors and which provides major repair loans in certain increasingly restrictive circs. No effort there, either, to look at the broader picture, so the media have continued their real estate boosterism unimpeded, which creates an impression that everything's fine when it's not. To date, we have not found any condo association that has been in any way very helpful. CHOA, in our jaundiced view, actually makes the situation worse by not vetting their advertisers.
Strangely enough, the best advocates seem to be the real estate salespeople - esp women. The lawyers have certainly wreaked holy hell on them over leakers, forcing realtors to up their insurance rates considerably the last few years - a very suspicious and unjust initiative when realtor is neither a bldg pro competent to design, construct or assess a bldg nor is realtor a lawyer, supposedly someone competent to vet strata minutes for evidence of construction defects - yet ANOTHER crucially important task at which the local bar has failed UTTERLY. It troubles me deeply how these **&&%$#s have made realtors the scapegoats while weaseling their own way into the business. As you might expect, we wish them all the luck they deserve.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1289#1289
Last edited by editor on Thu May 08, 2008 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Add YOUR voice today!
Sing along as you write VISOA with Tom Waits and the
Blind Boys of Alabama
Go Tell It On the Mountain!
Audio CD
| Quote: | From: Deryk Norton
To: ed
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:43 AM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE: BC LEGISLATION FAILS STRATA HOMEOWNERS
The Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association (VISOA) today released a report entitled Beyond the Sales Pitch: Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in BC Strata Developments. The report describes significant deficiencies in BC’s legislation affecting owners of 460,000 condominiums and other strata properties, or one in four taxable properties in the province.
This report comes after a series of public meetings with strata homeowners, written submissions from homeowners and consultation with homeowner associations on the mainland. Based on concerns expressed by strata homeowners, the report describes issues and proposes solutions. Most issues involve legislation deficiencies in transparency and accountability, including some corrected years ago in other jurisdictions. Highlights of deficiencies in BC’s legislation are:
Requirements for disclosure of property condition and financial information that are inadequate for both strata homeowners and prospective purchasers,
Lack of prosecution of developers operating contrary to strata legislation,
Lack of an accessible and authoritative source of legislation interpretation to support the operation of strata corporations according to law,
Dispute resolution provisions that effectively indulge irresponsible actions and leave disputes unresolved, and
Standards for licensing strata managers that are ineffective in protecting the rights of strata homeowners.
“VISOA will be taking this report to the provincial government and asking for a public review of the legislation affecting strata homeowners. It will also be available to other organizations and interested individuals”, said Felicia Oliver, VISOA President. The report can be viewed at www.visoa.bc.ca.
VISOA is a non-profit organization that has provided information and education services to strata homeowners and strata councils on Vancouver Island since 1973. It is independent of both government and the real estate industry. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1322#1322 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... It's REALLY as bad all that?
| Quote: | From: The Beemster
To: editor
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: from Richmond, BC
Dear Editor,
Thank you so very much for this information. You have just made my wife and I think twice about choosing a condo over a townhouse...for affordability more than anything else.
I'll be sure to do all the possible background checks that I can and get other professionals do what I can't do on my own.
As we begin our search, I hope you don't mind if I seek your counsel should I need to.
Believe me, I had no idea that things were this bad regarding BC condos.
Thanks again.
Jo |
Our reply - yes, it IS that bad!
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Beemster Jo
Cc: editor
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: from Richmond, BC
It IS this bad. If latent (hidden) defects in design and construction don't appear to be at issue at each strata corporation (highly unlikely, in our experience), condo governance will be. And if there is any kind of problem requiring repair, you have to negotiate the fix with your neighbors, many of whom will be disinclined to spend money on essential expert advice. You will not even be able to compel neighbors to follow proper maintenance and inspection procedures provided by the building or repair/reconstruction designers in the rare event the complex has such a thing! Owners forced to lobby the corporation for adherence to such things are frequently branded as trouble makers and removed from council. There is currently NO protection in the condo legislative scheme from strata bullying, which is RAMPANT! So, again, even if you find atty willing to peruse the strata council minutes and other strata documents pre-sale for gaps, the reporting requirements for strata corporations are so low that they will quite likely reveal nothing about the true state of either construction or conflicts among owners. Indeed, even at many brand new constructions, owners begin occupancy locked in battle with developers over 'deficiency' issues and repairs (see http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1032#1032).
The residential tenancy relationship, on the other hand, means landlord can be legally compelled to provide a habitable living space and, to facilitate this, there are currently TWO offices on the Lower Mainland staffed with excellent, informed public servants, who are pleased to provide helpful information and assistance by e-mail, phone and in person in a timely manner - quite often same day service. You may not own your property at the end of a tenancy but your money will not be locked up tight in a leaky, moldy property necessarily managed by other inexpert consumers often with competing interests that create, as you can imagine, an endless variety of expensive conflicts. In many if not most cases, you have to live through at least one major repair involving inconvenience as well as a variety of health risks to recover your loss. Because real estate is so precious and sought after here, investors usually make out like bandits. The luckiest of the rest break about even. Many declare bankruptcy.
In now our seventh year of operation, neither the construction industry nor the provincial govt has yet undertaken ANY effort to track epidemic housing failure here nor the costly repair/reconstruction experiments, the latter of which are also often problematic despite a baseless prevailing view that a repaired condo is as sound as a brand new supposedly defect-free one. Where is the hard evidence to support such a claim? We know of complexes that have undergone repeated major repairs each time with the claim of 'new, improved building technologies.' Nor has the provincial govt made ANY effort to add ANY consumer protections to our fraud-friendly condo legislation. Again, B.C. trails like a backwater after more enlightened jurisdictions like Ontario and Alberta, which require stratas to undergo professional reserve fund studies at regular intervals (see http://www.bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=73).
Yes, by all means, more questions and comments gratefully received.
Ed. |
Link to this entry
http://bccondos.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1386#1386 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
