Carpet Replaced But Not Underpad

Written by Shlomo Sharon | 30 November 2002

The Toronto Star − Condo Living Section
Condo Living sent the following question to Shlomo Sharon, President, Taft Forward Property Management Group

Question

Our building is around 10 years old and the carpets in the common areas need to be replaced. Actually, they are being replaced at the moment.

The original carpets were of a good quality and had padding underneath. However, the building management made a decision to replace this type of carpet without any under padding.

This has resulted in terrible echoing and the magnifying of any sounds in the common areas.

My question is, should not the condo owners get the same quality of carpets which means their money's worth? Do not tell me that maybe the management is trying to save, which
is not the case as they have sufficient funds which have been kept aside for this use.

Can the condo owners demand for a replacement of the carpets being installed with a better quality or what can we do?

Answer

In reading your question, I can see a few issues: The obligation of the Board of Directors in replacing the carpet and the under padding, the rights of the owners in such cases, and
the importance of sound advice by the management company to the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors has the obligation to carry out maintenance and repairs to the common elements.

Certain changes are considered simply maintenance. Repairs and other changes may involve either notice to the owners or a vote of owners.

Section 97(1) of the Condominium Act provides that maintenance and repairs to common elements in which the material used is reasonably close in quality to the original material and is in accordance with current construction standards, can be carried out by the Board (corporation) without notice to the owners or owners' approval.

If the Corporation does not meet the requirements in Section 97(1) and a position is taken that the under padding does not meet the reasonably close quality standard by being of lesser quality, then Section 97(3) provides that notice of such a change be given to the owners and the owners then have the right to requisition a meeting within 30 days of receipt of such notice.

Whether the under padding is considered a Section 97(1) maintenance and repair item or is a change that would give the owners the owners to requisition a meeting to vote on this change, in either case I would recommend that you initially try to discuss this matter with the board of directors and your management company.

There may be a reason why the underpadding was not put in and you should be provided with an explanation.

If you cannot resolve the problem and you have the support of many of the owners, you can formally request a special meeting of the owners which will deal with this issue by requisitioning a meeting in accordance with Section 46 of the act.