Strata Titles Board states its stand on condo spat over awning

Unfair to get resident to remove fixed awning management corporation had okayed, it says

A condominium unit owner who was unhappy that her neighbour had installed a fixed awning has failed to have it removed.

It was “far too late in the day” to do so, because the management corporation (MC) that runs the estate had already approved the awning and the neighbour had acted on it, said the Strata Titles Board after the unhappy neighbour filed an application to the board.

At issue was whether the board should review the MC’s decision made on Oct 5, 2017, and order the MC to prescribe retractable instead of fixed awnings as a reasonable response to a potential “killer litter” problem.

“There must be some finality to the MC’s everyday decisions. In other words, the policy of finality in the MC’s decision is overriding in the present case,” the board ruled in decision grounds earlier this month.

The board – presided over by Mr Alfonso Ang, with Dr Tang Hang Wu and Mr Cyril Seah as members – held it “unfair” for the neighbour, Mr Hui Mun Wai, to have to dismantle the fixed awnings that had already been installed.

The spat, involving the two apartment owners and the MC at Suites @ Newton in Surrey Road, underlined the tussle over who decides between fixed awnings and retractable awnings for ground-floor unit owners in various condominium developments.

The board accepted that MCs were empowered and obligated to prescribe guidelines in relation to awnings where there is potential for killer litter to hurt someone.

The killer litter issue is an exception, as ordinarily a 90 per cent resolution at a general meeting is required to install and affix an awning to common condominium property, and the unit owner can then install it as per the resolution terms.

In two other cases involving the Belysa executive condominium in Pasir Ris last year and the D’Leedon condominium off Farrer Road decided in June this year, it was the respective MCs which insisted that the affected owners install retractable instead of fixed awnings.

The board backed the MCs’ requirement for retractable awnings in both of those cases.

“It was in that context that the board agreed with the management corporations and held that retractable awnings represented a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the ‘killer litter’ problem,” said the board.

Both of those decisions had nothing to do with a situation – as in the present case – in which the MC had allowed for a fixed awning and the owner concerned had abided by the MC’s decision.

In the present case, Ms Rosalina Soh wanted Mr Hui to remove the fixed awning over his patio.

She said the awning made a lot of noise when it rained.

Her lawyers A.K. Nakoorsha and Teo Sher Min argued that she had suffered much distress from sleep loss and even called an acoustic consultant as an expert witness.

But lawyer Daniel Chen, representing Mr Hui and the MC, countered that the awning was necessary due to the prospect of killer litter, pointing to large pieces of debris that had fallen onto Mr Hui’s open terrace in June 2017, among other things.

The board, in dismissing Ms Soh’s application, noted that both parties “sought to downplay each other’s concerns in relation to the fixed awning”, and expressed sympathy for both parties.

Ms Soh was ordered to pay a total of $20,000 in costs plus disbursements to the respondents.

Law firm Lee & Lee, in a case update last Wednesday, said: “This is the first reported case in which a unit owner commenced an application before the Strata Titles Board against a neighbour, seeking an order that the neighbour remove an awning.”

The applicant had also sought a declaration that the MC had breached its duties by allowing the neighbour to install the awning, it added.

“Source:[Strata Titles Board states its stand on condo spat over awning] © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction”