| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 11:17 am Post subject: WHAT?! Still no public authority tracking LEAKY CONDOS? |
 |
|
What?! Still no appropriate public authority tracking the leaky condo crisis?
View results of a leading study indicating that fully 88% of exterior walls without overhang will have moisture problems.
Unbelievably, no, not comprehensively. Not yet. All but a handful of insurance companies have pulled the plug on B.C. housing but they have not yet come across with numbers. What follows are a few Vancouver numbers we found a year ago:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:59 AM
To: 'judy_rogers@city.vancouver.bc.ca'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Building Permits-A City Registry and Potential Tracking
System for Leaky Condos?
Please pass the e-mail message to John Robertson with the usual speed and alacrity we've come to expect from the hard workers at City Hall.
Thanks.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
| Quote: | Dear John Robertson, Chief Building Official, Vancouver
We still haven't had a response from our pal, Avy Woo, so we thought we'd pose the question to you. Also, do you know if the B.C. Building Code adopts the CSA building durability guidelines and if not, why not? We see from a technical paper at Morrison Hershfield's website that there is some disagreement about standards. We just want to know how binding the CSA guidelines are on building designers. |
| Quote: | -----Original Message-----
From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:13 AM
To: 'avy_woo@city.vancouver.bc.ca'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Building Permits-A City Registry?
Hello Avy,
You've been very helpful to us recently so we're back at the info trough. We know that building permits are required for just about all residential construction and renovation projects. What information does the City keep in this regard, how is it recorded (online? At the <a href="http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=LTSA&organizationalUnitCode=LTONW">Land Title Office?), for how long and how might a potential buyer access this information for a particular property? What construction/renovation information is not recorded by the City?
Thanks,
Editor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
email from jrogers
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
City of Vancouver replies:
| Quote: | From: Rogers, Judy [SMTP:judy_rogers@city.vancouver.bc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:54 AM
To: 'editor'; Robertson, John
Subject: RE: Building Permits-A City Registry and Potential Tracking
System for Leaky Condos?
Forwarded as you requested. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email from L.Robertson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vancouver's Chief Building Official replies:
| Quote: | From: Robertson, John [SMTP:john_robertson@city.vancouver.bc.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:23 PM
To: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Cc: Woo, Avy; Rogers, Judy
Subject: RE: Building Permits-A City Registry and Potential Tracking System for Leaky Condos?
Avy has been on vacation recently, but I will try to give you an overview of our records system. Our permit data is stored at City Hall on a variety of media. Pre-1995 permit data is stored on a microfiche system which has contains files dating back to the 1960's. Some paper files for the downtown and Broadway areas are also maintained. Our microfiche drawing files contain information stretching back to the 1920's.
In 1995 we moved to an electronic imaging system - called DOMINO. This contains all documents issued and handled by the City in the course of issuing building permits and carrying out of inspections. Data in these files includes contact information, building permit data, correspondence and letters of assurance. Blueprints and construction drawings, because of their size, are still microfiched. Recently, our system has been upgraded to be able to directly capture incoming faxes, and in the future, E-Mails. A potential buyer may view this information on our system with the consent of the building owner. Due to the privacy sections of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, we cannot allow unrestricted access to our files. Some information can be released, and we will always respond to file requests for information on any outstanding orders on the property. Fur further information on accessing our file data, pls contact Mrs Carlene Robbins, Manager of Record Services at 604-873-7535 As to your enquiry concerning Provincial adoption of the the CSA Durability Guidelines, the BC Building Code references these guidelines in Sentence 5.1.4.2.(2) as follows:- Design and Construction of building components and assemblies described in Article 5.1.2.1. shall be in accordance with good practice such as described in CSA S478, "Guidelines for Durability in Buildings". This sentence is also found in the Vancouver Building By-law but not the National Building Code of Canada.
My understanding of this somewhat indirect reference is due to the fact that the guidelines are not written in a form that is really suitable for enactment in a By-law. Rather they are written more in the form of recommendations to give guidance to designers.
From a practical perspective, data on the durability of building components is difficult to obtain. While accelerated weathering tests are available, they have limited application. Some long term testing of buiding envelope components is underway at the University of Waterloo, and I believe BCIT is developing a similar facility here in Vancouver. The Building Envelope Research Consortium (BERC) has better information on these programs and may be contacted through Don Hazleden at donh@houseworks.ca.
Trust this responds to your enquiry
John Robertson P.Eng
Chief Building Official, City of Vancouver
City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC. V5Y 1V4
Tel: 604-873-7522 Fax: 604-873-7100 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our thanks for the reply:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:57 PM
To: 'Robertson, John'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Re: Building Permits -- A City Registry and Potential Tracking
Sy stem for Leaky Condos?
Fascinating! Thanks so much for your prompt reply. It sounds as if it would be quite possible for the City to track building envelope renovations at least in Vancouver and also record any subsequent reconstruction work required. That's a very powerful tool for assessing both the problem and the fix. Is this being done?
Editor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
email from jrobertson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
A second reply:
| Quote: | From: Robertson, John [SMTP:john_robertson@city.vancouver.bc.ca]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 9:00 AM
To: 'editor'
Cc: Woo, Avy
Subject: RE: Building Permits-A City Registry and Potential Tracking System for Leaky Condos?
Yes, we do. The attached summary is taken from a recent Council report.
"During 2002, the City waived fees on 79 building envelope repair permits totaling $171,500 in revenue waived. Comparable figures for 2001 are 74 building envelope repair permits totaling $137,000 in revenue waived, and 105 permits in 2000 amounting to $170,500 in revenue waived. If Council extends the fee exemption, it is reasonable to expect revenues waived in 2003 would be similar."
For the purposes of estimating actual construction costs, an average permit fee of $5 per $1000 of construction value will give a reasonable estimate. Appx figures for the cost of repairs thus becomes:-
2002 - 34.3 Million
2001 - 27.4 Million
2000 - 34.1 Million
Note this is for residential construction only, and would not capture any maintenance work not requiring permit or work carried out without permit.
John Robertson P.Eng Chief Building Official,
City of Vancouver City Hall,
453 West 12th Avenue Vancouver, BC. V5Y 1V4
Tel: 604-873-7522
Fax: 604-873-7100 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor@bccondos.ca
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Many thanks and praise:
Vancouver tracks leaky condos at least to some extent:
| Quote: | b]From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:17 PM
To: 'Robertson, John'
Cc: 'editor@bccondos.ca'
Subject: Re: Building Permits -- A City Registry and Potential Tracking
System for Leaky Condos?[/b]
Dear Mr. Robertson,
As we told the mayor and council only yesterday, we are awed at the speed and alacrity of the City's response to even these rather complex queries. Thank you very much. Do you also track the age of these buildings and the number of units at each, and do you know if other cities in the province provide similar tracking?
Editor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Were those stats just for Vancouver?
| Quote: | From: Jamie Coburn [SMTP:jgcoburn@shaw.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:19 AM
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Subject: Council Report?
Dear sirs,
Was the report by P. Eng. John Robertson confined to downtown Vancouver or does it include Richmond, New West., Surrey, etc.? Does anyone have a guess as to the amount of repairs that remain to be completed?
I have read that the leaky condo crisis is half over but a recent drive through Richmond showed an alarming number of buildings suggesting leaky syndrome. In my unprofessional opinion, 10 % complete seems a more accurate number.
I have also noted an alarming number of highrises in repair. Is this an ominous sign of things to come?
The developers, contractors, engineers and insurance companies are all watching each other's back. Who is watching ours? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our reply:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:03 PM
To: 'Jamie Coburn'
Subject: RE: Council Report?
Dear Jamie Coburn,
Mr. Robertson’s report covered only Vancouver renovations. Each municipality is separate and may not record repairs in the same way. We’re trying to get all those stats and will report them when we do. However, Stats Can has told us they’re not keeping track of the numbers, and we can’t reach Louis de Miguel at CMHC to find out if he will be updating his excellent report on building failures from 2001, to which we link in our review of CMHC under Condo Link Reviews. This means asking each municipality’s Chief Building Official for the information, which is arduous, but we’ll do it.
We’re working on developing an accurate picture of the crisis, which is indeed ongoing. Here’s the worst of it: We’re not sure if the fixes are going to be much good. Sadly, people may be losing their shirts on special assessments for what are merely temporary repairs. If you’re interested, have a look at our Condo Life Cycles forum and at Morrison Hershfield’s site for the two articles there that discuss these repairs. We have a link to both on our homepage.
For a very good review of the highrise crisis, go to RDH Engineering’s site. Dave Ricketts wrote about it awhile back. (Note: See Leaky Condos, Why the Technology Didn’t Work by David Ricketts, P. Eng. of RDH Group, in the March, 1999 issue of Innovation). The problem is much more widespread now. What a nightmare it must be both to repair and pay to have repaired. See photos of highrises Under Tarps.
Thanks for the tip about Richmond. Our roving watchdogs have scheduled another scouting excursion for additions to our Under Tarps forum and we will include Richmond as well as New West among our stops. Any particular streets, do you remember?
We were delighted to hear from you today and hope you will check back often for new information. We’ve had some fun lately at our Watchdog Forum between the author of the leaky condo re-sales article and the editor of Real Estate Weekly. Have a look when you have time. You’re quite correct in our view when you suggest that caveat emptor (buyer beware) is the mantra of B.C.’s real estate industry. Thank you again for writing.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 11:59 am Post subject: GVRD leaky condo stats - 1996-2002 |
|
|
Any new stats yet on leaky condos throughout the Lower Mainland?
Good question. Unfortunately, we don't yet have figures for each municipality as we do for the City of Vancouver (see above), but a visit to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which represents 21 municipalities, lists a table of residential building permit totals here: however, it's not clear from the chart how many of the permits were issued for leaky condo renovations.
The site also provides a chart listing the median condo sale price at each municipality in 2001 and 2002 using information attributed to the B.C. Real Estate Board. We'll investigate that site and report back soon.
In the meantime, here's the e-mail we sent the GVRD today, requesting a statistical breakdown of leaky condos at each of the 21 member municipalities:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:51 AM
To: 'comm_ed@gvrd.bc.ca'
Subject: Leaky condo stats
Hello GVRD,
We’re a consumer advocacy website devoted to leaky condos at http://www.bccondos.ca, and we were at your website today in an effort to find some leaky condo statistics comparable to those provided to us by Vancouver Chief Bldg Official John Robertson. You can see the numbers listed right on the top of our homepage. Does the GVRD have a similar cost/renovation breakdown for each of the 21 member municipalities?
Thanks very much.
Editor@bccondos.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Editor
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We rounded up all the usual suspects but still no answers:
Visit our Condo Life Cycles forum to view our e-mails asking both the Homeowner Protection Office and Statistics Canada for leaky condo stats to no avail. We haven't given up, though.
Here are some interesting numbers we found on the web, though we're unsure how old they are or even how they were calculated. Here's the e-mail we sent to inquire further:
| Quote: | From: editor [SMTP:editor@bccondos.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 12:15 PM
To: 'pauljw88@hotmail.com'
Subject: Your leaky condo stats
Hello PermaDry,
We’re a consumer advocacy website devoted to leaky condos at http://www.bccondos.ca and we were delighted to find your website this a.m. on the Internet. We’re particularly interested in the leaky condo stats you list. Where did you derive your information? Your numbers, which seem as reasonable as any we’ve seen, indicate an average renovation cost of about $20,000 per owner. How was this figure arrived at?
Editor@bccondos.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Provincial government's accounting of leaky condos in 2003:
Here are some figures recorded in Hansard May 14/03 under ASSISTANCE FOR LEAKY-CONDO OWNERS:
| Quote: | T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. It's regarding those awful leaky condos. Can the minister please tell the House the status of the leaky condos that the government has undertaken and if the minister has reached any conclusions?
Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of leaky condos certainly remains a major and difficult issue. We estimate at this point that some 65,000 homes and families are affected in some measure by leaky-condo syndrome. The cost of that is certainly at least $1.5 billion and possibly up to $1.6 billion, so it's a huge issue for a lot of families.
To date, through the homeowner protection office, the province has invested $293 million in no-interest loans. We have also put out $7.7 million in interest rebates, PST rebates, to families that have been affected by that. As well, HPO has invested a lot of resources in research and education to ensure that we can remediate those homes properly and ensure that the problem doesn't continue in the future.
We are continuing to work, as well, with the federal government to try to strengthen their partnership. I'm working in particular with the new secretary of state for housing, Steve Mahoney, to see if we can get a GST equivalent to the PST rebate, (Find more on the GST rebate still unavailable for leaky condo renovation and repair) to get more action on leaky co-ops and to move ahead and try to resolve this situation, which unfortunately affects many British Columbians. |
And from April 3/03:
| Quote: | ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL AND WOMEN'S SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 16: ministry operations, $642,998,000 (continued).
J. MacPhail: Could the minister update me on the home protection office?
Hon. G. Abbott: I believe the member is probably referring to the homeowner protection office. The office continues to perform very well, actually, and continues to perform in four program areas of responsibility: licensing residential builders and building-envelope renovators; monitoring the mandatory third-party home warranty insurance system; conducting research and education; and administering a no-interest loan program and PST-relief grant program for owners of leaky condos.
J. MacPhail: What has been the take-up on loans?
[1015]
Hon. G. Abbott: Over all, there have been $282 million in loans flow through the HPO. Of that, about $60 million is for the federal leaky co-op buildings, and about $222 million — or the balance — is for strata condominium renovation.
The volume of applications is down for the second year in a row. We are down now to typically three applications a day as opposed to around 20 a couple of years ago.
J. MacPhail: Could the minister update me on the warranty program? Who covers warranties now? Perhaps he could just update me on that.
Hon. G. Abbott: The general breakdown in terms of the warranty providers…. The three largest, particularly in the area of new home warranty — or the two-year, five-year, ten-year warranty — are National, Residential and St. Paul's. Those are the three large companies in that area, and they account for about 95 percent of the market. Willis and Marathon are also warranty providers.
In the area of building-envelope renovation, two-year or five-year warranty, Residential, St. Paul and Willis are the three principal warranty providers in that area of renovation-repair.
J. MacPhail: So across the whole spectrum of warranty, there are four companies involved.
Hon. G. Abbott: Five.
J. MacPhail: National, Residential, St. Paul's, Willis — and what's the fifth one?
Hon. G. Abbott: And Marathon.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please.
J. MacPhail: Oh. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought Willis and Marathon was one company.
Now, how does this work? I'm getting some feedback from my constituents, many of whom are suffering from leaky condos, by virtue of where my constituency is. In order to have building-envelope repairs done, one must go through a warranty company. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Abbott: There is a dividing point in terms of the cost of repair. For repairs under $2,000 per unit, the individual or the strata corporation would be free to select whoever they wished in the marketplace. If the repair is over $2,000, the legislation currently requires that a building-envelope consultant be engaged and that a licensed renovator be used for the purpose. The licensed renovator would have to be able to acquire a warranty for that repair.
[1020]
J. MacPhail: How long have these five warranty companies been in operation? I do recall there was a
[ Page 5967 ]
collapse of warranty companies, and then, clearly, these new companies come on board. How long have they been in existence?
Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, these companies have all been around for a while. They've been in this particular business since it became mandatory in the fall of 2000. In terms of the companies themselves, Willis, for example, is a subsidiary of Commonwealth Insurance. Residential Warranty Co. of Canada is a subsidiary of Kingsway Insurance. St. Paul Guarantee is an insurance company unto itself. Marathon is part of the Royal and SunAlliance, and National Home Warranty is also part of the Royal and SunAlliance but, again, geared to this particular marketplace.
J. MacPhail: So we've got probably just a little over a couple of years of experience. I'm talking about building envelope repairs now, not the warranty from new housing. Building envelope repairs: has the homeowner protection office examined the effect of warranty companies' responsibility for directing strata corporations to certain companies for repairs? What's the effect on pricing? Do we have any idea?
Hon. G. Abbott: We're not aware of any sort of compulsion with respect to the selection between the strata council, the consultant they engage, the warranty company they engage, ultimately, or the licensed renovator they use. The only concern that HPO has in respect of the repair is that if it's over a $2,000 repair, it be done by a licensed building envelope renovator.
We do believe there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. If strata councils select wisely in terms of, in the first instance, the choice of consultant they take to give them the best advice around the kind of repair that would be appropriate for their homes…. Again, the strata council is free to accept or refuse the advice of the consultant they engage, but presumably, the consultant is going to bring to them the best advice they can with respect to who the appropriate licensed renovator would be. Our only concern in that is that they be licensed and that they be capable of securing a warranty for the repair.
[1025]
J. MacPhail: It's interesting. I hear anecdotal evidence of market forces playing in this area of building envelope repair. It's only anecdotal, and that's why I was seeking information about whether there's any statistical tracking of these building envelope repairs. . There is a potential in some communities — Vancouver being one, and Victoria being another — of almost a play of overheating the market in areas because of the building envelope repairs that are going on.
I hear some anecdotal evidence that in order to get a warranty and therefore go through the licensed building envelope repairs, companies…. Please don't misunderstand me. I think the only method of going is to have licensed contractors, but there appears to be a heating-up of the market that is putting pressure on pricing. There is a way to determine that, of course, and that is by community. You can tell whether pricing pressures are on the rise and a whole bunch of building repair is occurring at the same time, versus communities where building envelope repair isn't occurring.
Who would people go to, to bring forward concerns around that?
Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to address the opposition leader's latter point first and then sort of move backward into some of the detail that backstops the first answer.
If there is a sense on the part of any strata councils, for example, that there were constrictions in the marketplace that were making it difficult for them to secure their repairs in a timely way, we'd welcome them to advise the homeowner protection office of that. The office is not aware of any particular problems in that regard, but if strata councils have that concern, we would certainly like to hear from them.
In terms of the marketplace itself — and, I guess, looking broadly at the marketplace — home repair or condo repair and renovation obviously occurs within the broader context of the home, institutional and commercial sector construction. That is doing very well right now, broadly speaking, in terms of housing starts and so on. We're doing pretty well. There may be a little competition for labour, which is probably a healthy thing, but we don't have any evidence that would suggest that repairs to condominiums are being delayed as a consequence of that.
[1030]
We have about 74 licensed condo renovating companies in British Columbia, operating mainly, obviously, in the lower mainland and on southern Vancouver Island. There are approximately 24 consultants that work in the field, and of course, there are the four insurance companies that provide the warranties.
Just for the member's information, here is the breakdown of that warranty market. Willis Canada is the largest player at 50.2 percent, then Residential Warranty at 24.4 percent, Marathon at 14.5 percent and St. Paul at 11 percent. There is, I think, a fair bit of competition in the marketplace.
To the best of our information, there is sufficient competition between those players that there shouldn't be a kind of artificial restriction that would produce an unsatisfactory result in terms of the timely and effective repair of condominiums. Again, as I said at the outset, if there are those concerns, we would like to hear about them.
J. MacPhail: It just occurred to me to put on the record that I am a member of a strata council, but I assume I'm allowed to ask these questions. The questions aren't related to anything that affects me personally.
Is there an avenue through the Homeowner Protection Office that strata councils or individual owners can file a concern or a complaint if there's even a suspicion in this area? I'm not asking whether there's a method
[ Page 5968 ]
for investigation of those complaints but just about registering concerns that could be kept track of.
Hon. G. Abbott: There certainly are opportunities for people to bring forward concerns if they have them with respect to either the consultants that had been engaged, I suppose, the licensed building envelope renovators that had been engaged, or, indeed, the warranty company that had ultimately been engaged.
In each of those cases, and particularly with the building envelope renovators who we license, there's an opportunity to ensure there is quality assurance in the system. There's a 1-800 number that people can call — 1-800-407-7757 — or they can go online at www.hpo.bc.ca to access by electronic means.
J. MacPhail: I read an article in the newspaper about B.C. Housing suing for leaky condo damage, and of course, I do have B.C. Housing complexes in my own riding as well. Could the minister update me on how that came about and the status of it?
[1035]
Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the opposition leader's question, it's estimated that about 250 social housing buildings have been affected in some measure by leaky-condo syndrome. Obviously, the extent of damage will vary among those 250 buildings. Generally speaking, the buildings in question are social housing complexes constructed between 1983 and 1997.
To date, about 50 of those 250 buildings either have had the repairs completed or the repairs are under construction. We estimate that the total bill for those repairs could be in the range of $100 million, so it is a very substantial problem. Obviously, social housing was no more immune than other forms of housing to the elements we term collectively as leaky-condo syndrome.
B.C. Housing is using well-established cost recovery methods to try to secure as much compensation for those damages as is possible. Clearly — and this is not a happy situation; it's a very difficult situation — in the absence of B.C. Housing taking action to secure compensation, we would simply be saying that the taxpayers of British Columbia should eat the cost of those repairs in whole. We're not prepared to go there on this or on schools that have suffered a similar syndrome.
B.C. Housing has launched litigation, as was noted in the article on the weekend, but we are not wedded to lengthy, expensive litigation processes if alternatives are available. Certainly, we are very open to alternatives to litigation, and some of those opportunities are being pursued.
J. MacPhail: What's the basis of the lawsuit?
Hon. G. Abbott: The range of issues that come into play on social housing are, broadly speaking, very similar to those that come into play with respect to the private condominium market and the leaky-condo syndrome there. Among the basic issues would be design, labour and materials.
J. MacPhail: How does one proceed on lawsuits as the Crown? Are there individual lawsuits? With 250 buildings…. I'm sorry, did the minister say from 1983 to 1997?
Hon. G. Abbott: That's correct.
J. MacPhail: The minister is nodding yes.
How does one proceed? Is it construction company by construction company, designer by designer? Are architects involved?
[1040]
Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, the writs are filed on an individual basis, and to this point, some 50 to 60 writs have been filed in relation to leaky social housing complexes. The writs are filed after B.C. Housing has secured the best third-party legal and technical advice they can in respect of the issues in each of those individual cases. We would look, for example, at what the extent of damage is. Based on that, a judgment is made about whether it's appropriate to proceed legally or not.
J. MacPhail: The minister mentioned that this is one avenue of pursuit to recover costs, but there may be alternatives. What are the other alternatives?
Hon. G. Abbott: The alternatives to litigation are really no different than anywhere else in the world of litigation. One alternative is negotiation, and hopefully, parties can — again, based on the best advice each of the parties can secure — achieve a negotiated solution. To achieve that negotiated solution, sometimes mediation services can be engaged. Where the parties jointly agree, the parties could move to an arbitrated solution, if that's what they chose.
I think the other point that should be noted for the member's consideration is that almost all of those 250 buildings I described earlier are owned and managed by non-profit societies. We take on assignment of the non-profit's rights to streamline litigation.
J. MacPhail: Sorry, can you explain that in lay terms? I don't understand that last point.
Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try it this way. If it's still not sufficiently plain language, we'll try again.
As owners of the buildings, the right of legal action belongs to the non-profit societies. B.C. Housing takes assignment of those rights of legal action before proceeding, and B.C. Housing then becomes the plaintiff in those actions collectively. That streamlines the process rather than having 250 separate actions by non-profit societies.
J. MacPhail: Thank you for the explanation.
Who pays the legal fees for bringing forward the action?
Hon. G. Abbott: B.C. Housing.
[ Page 5969 ]
J. MacPhail: For '03-04 what is the budget for those legal fees?
Hon. G. Abbott: While there is obviously an element of unpredictability in respect of legal actions generally, the estimate is between $1 million and $1.5 million.
J. MacPhail: I assume that's for '03-04, which is what I asked the question for. The minister is nodding yes.
How many buildings of those 250…. Let me put it this way. Have all the 250 buildings that have been affected by leaky-condo syndrome had some repairs done to them?
[1045]
Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted earlier, about 50 of the 250 have either been recipients of a final repair package or that is under construction. Of the balance, we expect that in some cases, non-profit societies have undertaken some limited repairs in relation to the problems they face, but of course, that's going to vary among those roughly 200 buildings.
J. MacPhail: What happens to the residents of buildings? Who is responsible for the individual costs imposed on residents as construction takes place for the leaky condo repairs?
Hon. G. Abbott: In most cases, the residents actually remain in the buildings as the repairs commence. In some exceptional circumstances, they may have to be relocated for a period of time. In cases like that, the relocation costs then form part of the broader repair costs.
J. MacPhail: At no time is there any assessment put on residents of B.C. Housing-managed sites.
Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. The rent that tenants are subject to in B.C. Housing is based on income. There is no additional levy for these repairs.
J. MacPhail: In the city of Vancouver, it's described in the newspapers, and I've had some discussion with the Attorney General on this, that there is a lesser ability to sue for leaky condos. Can the minister update me on that or distinguish any lawsuits brought forward in Vancouver as opposed to lawsuits brought forward for buildings outside of Vancouver?
Hon. G. Abbott: The Vancouver Charter provides a measure of immunity for the city itself in relation to building code–related actions by parties within the city of Vancouver, but the charter doesn't affect the legal rights of, for example, contractors, architects or engineers within the city of Vancouver. For the purposes of this discussion, whether it's within the city of Vancouver or outside of it, the issue remains the same.
J. MacPhail: None of the lawsuits being brought forward in the area that we're now discussing involves city councils or municipalities.
Hon. G. Abbott: That's correct.
(emphasis added for clarity) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our plea to the GVRD:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: icentre@gvrd.bc.ca
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: Any stats yet on leay condos at the GVRD?
Hello GVRD,
We're appalled that there is still no public authority fully tracking leaky condos/co-ops and their repair experiments despite the number of tarps going up each day throughout the district - and especially in view of the rampant housing development receiving unguarded approval throughout the district even though there is still no public office where condo owners may bring questions and complaints. (See our links above).
Do GVRD Managers have any plan to:
(a) track housing failures and their experimental repairs in an effort to provide to prospective buyers - especially out-of-towners - with some confidence in B.C.'s dubious real estate industry beyond the bloody doctrine of caveat emptor, and
(b) provide a regional public forum where condo owners may raise complex legal questions and concerns regarding condo management and maintenance. The provincial *Real Estate Superintendent has somehow given himself permission to disengage.
Thanks,
Editor@bccondos.ca
http://www.bccondos.ca
Tracking leaky, substandard, inaccessible, unaffordable multi-unit housing worldwide because those who should won't. |
*Note: Here is the dispiriting proviso listed at FICOM Jan. 28/06:
| 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.
- License or regulate strata managers – this function is performed by the Real Estate Council of British Columbia |
In view of the above, does it seem in any way prudent for municipal planning authorities to continue approving condominium development? No, we don't think so, either. We will consider the duty of care of public authorities in this regard when we review materials from a recent CLE course, Suing and Defending the Government 2006. Please visit our Condo Law FAQs forum soon for updates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
editor
Site Admin
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Posts: 878
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's the value, if any, of GVRD approval for local development proposals?
The GVRD replies:
See South Campus Neighborhood Plan at our Watchdog Forum for more on rampant construction plans at the University Endowment Lands (UEL).
| Quote: | From: Donna Davis
To: editor@bccondos.ca
Cc: Christie Webb ; Norm Hoffmann
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: RE: Any stats yet on leaky condos at the GVRD?
Dear Sir or Madam,
The main role of the GVRD is to deliver essential utility services like drinking water, sewage treatment, recycling and garbage disposal. (Please visit our website for more information: http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/about/index.htm.) The subject of leaky condos does not appear to be included in the many issues addressed by the GVRD.
Upon performing a quick Internet search on the subject, I noticed that the “The Housing Policy Branch is responsible for developing provincial housing policy, strategies and programs and for providing policy advice on specific issues such as the residential construction industry, leaky condos, housing markets, social housing, homelessness, housing for persons with special needs, and the role of local government in housing.” See this Government of British Columbia website at http://www.housing.gov.bc.ca/housing/.
Regards,
Donna Davis
GVRD Information Centre
604.451.6173
604.436.6901 Fax
www.gvrd.bc.ca |
A note of thanks:
| Quote: | From: editor
To: Donna Davis
Cc: editor@bccondos.ca
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: Any stats yet on leaky condos at the GVRD?
Thank you, Donna, for your prompt reply. Yes, we are well aware of both the federal and provincial housing programs and policies, but we are grateful for clarification regarding the actual value of GVRD approval of a number of controversial housing development plans at the University Endowment Lands recently. Most illuminating.
Ed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
