Sydney nurse Claire is facing a $250,000 special levy for a balcony extension she doesn’t want
Updated . First published at
Nine.com.au’s new series aims to raise awareness over apartment owner rights. Nine
Exclusive: A Sydney nurse is facing an eye-watering $365,000 bill to repair and renovate her apartment building, saddling her with a strata debt for construction work she doesn’t want.
Claire Gomez bought her small apartment in a nine-unit building in Dee Why on the Northern Beaches in 2010 for $450,000.
Claire Gomez is facing a $365,000 special levy, which includes a major balcony extension she cannot afford. Nine.com.au
Do you have a story? Contact reporter April Glover at april.glover@nine.com.au
The building now suffers from concrete spalling – also known as “concrete cancer” – and the balconies are in a state of disrepair – an issue that will cost around $115,000 per owner to fix.
Gomez told nine.com.au she is happy to foot this bill, acknowledging it is a costly but necessary repair.
It is the estimated $250,000 extra fee for balcony extensions that won’t benefit her own unit that she believes is unfair.
The entire repair and renovation plan for the block is set to cost $3,128,384 in total.
For her part, Gomez is facing an estimated $365,000 bill if the plans go ahead.
She is one of the many people facing sky-high strata fees, which is part of nine.com.au’s series to raise awareness over apartment owner rights and what you need to know before buying a unit.
“All the other units are owned by investors, and they want to extend their balconies to increase the value of their property,” Gomez said.
“That extra amount is almost $250,000 I have to pay.
“It’s horrendous.”
Under the proposed plan, the ocean-facing balconies of seven owner-investors would be extended by up to nearly 15.83 square metres.
Seven of the nine unit owners want this to happen. Only Gomez and another owner oppose the works.
Gomez (middle in blue) surrounded by friends from her Dee Why community. Nine.com.au
Because Gomez’s balcony is on the ground floor, she believes hers would only be extended by 3.6 square metres.
The plans sent to council claim Gomez would gain 8.6 square metres, however she said council has already indicated this amount would not be approved.
The proposed renovation would take away her ocean view and reduce some of the natural light, potentially devaluing the unit.
“3.6 square metres is not worth $250,000,” Gomez said.
The water ingress seen on Gomez’s balcony. Nine.com.au
“And the balcony above me and the support wall are going to totally block out my natural sunlight... my apartment is going to get a lot darker and I have to pay for the privilege of that.”
Under NSW strata law, if the majority of owners vote to renovate or change common property like balconies, dissenting owners like Gomez are forced to cough up.
“Unlike in Victoria, where they do have what they call the benefit principle, where those who benefit from the improvement are the ones who pay for it,” the Australian College of Strata Lawyers spokesperson Amanda Farmer said.
“In NSW, if work is being done on the common property, all owners have to chip in to pay for that as part of their levies.”
Gomez has lodged an application with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), urgently seeking a repair-only outcome for the building.
Despite the benefit principle working against Gomez, Farmer said the law is “very well settled” regarding urgent repairs in apartments.
“An owners’ corporation must properly repair and maintain its common property,” Farmer added.
Gomez is now awaiting a tribunal date, which she fears could arrive long after the construction begins.
The plans also remain contingent on council approval.
Gomez plans to object to the development application (DA) for the extension.
After the owners were made aware of her opposition to the works, Gomez was sent a letter.
The balconies are in a state of disrepair. Nine.com.au
“The current path of escalation is causing frustration and deterioration in goodwill among owners,” the letter reads, which was cited by nine.com.au.
“We say this candidly because we believe it is important that the long-term impacts of these actions on neighbourly relationships and future cooperation within the building are properly considered.”
Gomez said she was very distressed when she received this letter.
“It’s lucky none of them live here because they’re all investors, so I don’t see them,” she added.
“But it had a huge impact on my mental health
“My home is like my safe place. I’m a registered nurse, and work can be pretty full on and stressful, and then home is a safe place.
“I read that email and just had a panic attack, and then I started having more panic attacks.”
Gomez does not want to sell her home – nor could she easily, given this potential sky-high levy hidden in plain sight in the apartment’s strata report.
A real estate agent recently advised the other unit owner to sell $300,000 under market value because of the fees.
“So I’m kind of trapped right now,” she added.
Gomez said she is unable to secure a loan from the bank or a mortgage redraw to pay off the $365,000 bill due to her income.
Her only option, if NCAT does not rule in her favour or if the DA is accepted, may be to pay off a high-interest strata loan.
Local MP fights for apartment owner
Gomez’s local MP, Michael Regan, who is the Independent member for Wakehurst, penned a letter to the NSW Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading Anoulack Chanthivong.
He said Gomez’s situation is an example of why a “benefit principle” should be introduced to NSW strata legislation.
This would distribute the cost of building upgrades according to the benefit generated for owners, meaning Gomez would only pay a fraction of the $250,000 balcony extension, if at all.
This has been law in Victoria since 2013.
“It is deeply unfair that she is being charged a very high fee to lose amenity in her own home, especially when the owners who will gain from this do not even live in the building and will presumably be able to charge higher rents to their tenants once works are complete,” Regan said in the letter.
“I request your consideration of reforms in this space.
“Ms Gomez understands that reforms may come too late for her case, but she certainly hopes that no one should have to face financial catastrophe like her just to keep the home she loves.”
Gomez’s case has caught the attention of strata advocates.
Co-founder of the Strata Owners Alliance Adam Promnitz told nine.com.au that, while democratic decisions are a part of strata living, “it is not a licence to bypass basic standards of fairness”.
“It is remarkable NSW’s protections in cases like this are so poor given NSW has a reputation as the state which [is] the most difficult and expensive for owners to perform basic renovations in strata,” he said.
“NSW strata legislation has the balance all wrong.
“No owner should be subject to the majority making their home substantially worse and then handed the bill for it as the cherry on top.”
Share a tip-off, video or photo with us
