Two owners in a Westmere apartment building spent 18 months arguing about a leaking balcony. The water was coming through the waterproofing membrane underneath the tiles. One owner said the membrane was common property — part of the building structure — and the body corporate should fix it. The other owner (the one below, dealing with ceiling damage) said the membrane was within the unit above's boundary and that owner was responsible. Both had solicitors. Both had building reports that supported their position. It ended up at the Tenancy Tribunal.
The question of who fixes what is one of the most common sources of dispute in body corporate buildings. The answer depends on where the damaged element sits — within a unit or within the common property — and the boundary between those two things isn't always obvious from the inside of an apartment.
The body corporate is responsible for maintaining and repairing: all common property (hallways, lobbies, lifts, stairwells, car parks, gardens, shared facilities); assets owned by the body corporate; assets used in connection with the common property; and structural elements that serve more than one unit. That last category is where things get complicated — a pipe running through one unit that also serves the unit above or below is typically a body corporate responsibility even though it sits within someone's home.
The owner is responsible for maintaining the inside of their unit — the walls, flooring, internal plumbing and electrical installations that only serve their unit, and any fit-out improvements they have added. For detached or semi-detached units (think terrace houses within a body corporate development), owners may also be responsible for exterior elements like fencing or outbuildings that are exclusively theirs.
Any work an owner does that might affect common property or another unit requires written consent from the body corporate, and sometimes from the affected owners directly. This applies to seemingly minor things: a bathroom renovation that involves moving a wall that might be structural, adding a deck or pergola that uses common area, or running cables through the building's shared infrastructure. Getting consent before the work starts is significantly less expensive than dealing with the consequences of work done without it.
The body corporate also has rights of access to units for maintenance purposes — at reasonable hours and with reasonable notice (except in genuine emergencies). An owner who refuses to allow access for necessary maintenance work can be compelled through the Tenancy Tribunal. This is rarely a smooth or fast process, which is why relationship management matters as much as legal rights.
On the Westmere balcony: the membrane was ultimately found to be common property. The body corporate was ordered to repair it. The owner above had not caused the failure — it was age and weathering. But the 18-month delay in resolving the issue meant the ceiling damage below had spread significantly, and the cost of fixing that was more than the original membrane repair would have been.
The most effective way to avoid this kind of dispute is a clear maintenance register that documents what the body corporate is responsible for, with photos and inspection records. When something breaks, there is a baseline to check against. Buildings that have that kind of record rarely spend 18 months arguing about whose problem it is.
Quarter is the new body corporate — transparent, owner-first, and built for the way people actually live together. See how it works at quarter.nz.