Major design flaw in building resulting in damage - who's responsible?

Porkpie

Hi all,

I'm living in a top floor apartment in a block which is attached on to a shopping centre. There is a fault with an 'AOV' in the roof of the building (Automatic Opening Vent - a vent which is supposed to open if there's a fire). The AOV has, since I moved in over 2 years ago, opened occasionally (on average about once a month). This AOV is located down the corridor from my apartment and seems to open for no reason at all.

I have told the management company time and time again about this, they get it closed, then it happens again! The really upsetting thing is that when it's open rain gets in and soaks the carpet underneath. The floor has already been damaged badly and the light underneath due to rainfall. Apparently much of the reason for its opening is due to alarm activations in the adjoining shopping centre. It's unbelievable that there is no separate alarm system for the apartments. Any time it opens it's always up to me to inform the management company. They are never aware it's open until I complain!

The management company has offered to get a quote for upgrading the AOV system so it is separate from the shopping centre (will prob cost thousands to fix). And guess what, apartment owners will be expected to pay for it! Is this not unbelievably unfair? It is clearly a design flaw, as admitted by the Management Company. I understand it's not really up to the MC to cover the costs, but shouldn't the architect bear some responsibility? Apartmnent owners will also be expected to pay for the damage! I intend to fight this. Any advice would be appreciated. I have attached pictures.

calsatron

Seems like it'll be tough to prove anyone was actually negligent regarding the design and installation of the vent. If I understand correctly the vent is designed to open to increase ventilation and prevent the centre filling with smoke in the event of the fire, in which case its working as intended.

The large quotes coming in from the management agent regarding the replacement though would be more indicitive of a larger problem, that being that you don't have an significant (if any) reserve held in your developments sinking fund. As I understand it any large capital outlays necessary should be primarily financed from the sinking fund and then from contributions from owners.

I'd check with the agent regarding any provisions being made and if you don't get satisfaction there I'd get hold of the management companies last set of published accounts and check them.

Porkpie

calsatron wrote: »

If I understand correctly the vent is designed to open to increase ventilation and prevent the centre filling with smoke in the event of the fire, in which case its working as intended.

Correct. But it shouldn't be opening so often, and it shouldn't be activated by alarm testing in the shopping centre!

calsatron wrote: »

The large quotes coming in from the management agent regarding the replacement though would be more indicitive of a larger problem, that being that you don't have an significant (if any) reserve held in your developments sinking fund.

Good idea, will check on the sinking fund. Thanks a lot.

Victor

The vent is there to allow the passive venting of smoke and hot gases from the escape route, without forcing air through the building as such, which could feed the fire.

The designers will say its an operational issue. Whenever the alarm is triggered (whether a test or actual incident) someone will have to make sure the vents are closed.

How interlinked are the apartments and the shopping centre - are the apartments over / next to the retail sections? Is this stairwell accessible from the shops?

If you want, you could have someone investigate whether the shopping centre and apartment systems should be linked and how they are linked. I would recommend a fire engineer over an electrical engineer, but they may be expensive.

Porkpie

Victor wrote: »

How interlinked are the apartments and the shopping centre - are the apartments over / next to the retail sections? Is this stairwell accessible from the shops?

The apartment block is beside the shopping centre - you could say that the shopping centre and apartment block is one big building. Stairwell is accessible from the shops although you have to go in a kind of indirect route.

Will explore this further, cheers for the advice, but I still feel that apartment owners shouldn't have to pay for this. We do have a sinking fund, but we have to pay in to this anyway as far as I know. So, we shouldn't even have to use the sinking fund really.

Del2005

Porkpie wrote: »

The management company has offered to get a quote for upgrading the AOV system so it is separate from the shopping centre (will prob cost thousands to fix). And guess what, apartment owners will be expected to pay for it! Is this not unbelievably unfair? It is clearly a design flaw, as admitted by the Management Company. I understand it's not really up to the MC to cover the costs, but shouldn't the architect bear some responsibility? Apartmnent owners will also be expected to pay for the damage! I intend to fight this. Any advice would be appreciated. I have attached pictures.

Would it not be easier to get a gazabo type shelter built above the vent? It shouldn't affect the airflow of the AOV if designed correctly and would cost a lot less then re designing the fire alarm system for the centre and apartment block.

Also try and get some agreement off the shopping centre that if their alarm goes off they'll have someone respond to the vent. If there is 24hour security in the centre it may be possible for you to get that vent put in as part of their rounds, it's activated by their alarms, with a tag to make sure they are checking it. But that'd have to be requested by you MC.