The housing association cannot check if a constructor has been on-site; what they need is a certificate where a constructor takes responsibility for their statement that the wall is non-load-bearing.I Ismi said:
However, of course, it's possible that drawings are incorrect because buildings have been modified during their lifetime.
I believe that @Claes Sörmland is needed here because the board is making demands that I think they do not have the right to make.
It seems that the board is concerned that the wall may be load-bearing, while TS is convinced that it is not, based on statements from three different constructors and writers in this thread.
The board now wants TS to arrange for even more documentation.
The board has no formal right to demand this; it is primarily up to TS to assess whether the wall is load-bearing and thus requires permission from the board to make any interventions in it. If the board does not share this assessment, they must conduct and finance the investigation themselves. That's where it ends, I think; the ball is in the board's court.
If it later turns out that the board's investigation shows that the wall is load-bearing (which seems highly unlikely in this case), the board has a few different options to forcibly have it restored by TS. If TS refuses, the board can restore it themselves at TS's expense.
The board now wants TS to arrange for even more documentation.
The board has no formal right to demand this; it is primarily up to TS to assess whether the wall is load-bearing and thus requires permission from the board to make any interventions in it. If the board does not share this assessment, they must conduct and finance the investigation themselves. That's where it ends, I think; the ball is in the board's court.
If it later turns out that the board's investigation shows that the wall is load-bearing (which seems highly unlikely in this case), the board has a few different options to forcibly have it restored by TS. If TS refuses, the board can restore it themselves at TS's expense.
What I object to is that it is not a right to demolish the co-op's walls. In my opinion, it should be up to the co-op to approve it. If it is allowed, it should reasonably be TS who bears the cost of providing the documentation on whether the wall is load-bearing or not, if no one knows that yet. A wall belongs, as far as I know, to the co-op. Thus, they should be able to impose requirements when it comes to demolishing them.Claes Sörmland said:
If you now think it’s so simple and goes so quickly, then it should be no problem for OP to gather the information. There are many things in a building. One cannot know everything. If the question has never come up before, then no one has had reason to find out what is load-bearing and what is not.Anna_H said:
If these constructors are so sure of their assertion, they should issue a certificate, and everyone will be satisfied. However, I am certain that none of these three constructors dare to do so without a visit to the site. It's easy to talk and promise. It's harder to actually take responsibility for what you say.I Ismi said:
The entire apartment is owned by the BRF as real property. But what matters is not who owns the apartment, but the division of responsibility for the maintenance of the apartment (the internal maintenance) versus the rest of the property (the external maintenance). And the responsibility for the internal maintenance lies with the apartment owner. Normally, maintenance measures of non-load-bearing walls are a decision made by the apartment owner.A AG A said:
The solution here is for the board to pay a designer, say 5000 SEK, to mark the load-bearing walls in all the association's houses with a color marking on the drawings. Then the association has that information for the future. This can be placed as PDF files on the association's website so all members have access to this information. It is valuable for all members.
No, there is information that "suggests" that the wall is not load-bearing. I am trained myself and have worked as a designer. A lot suggests, as I said, that it is non-load-bearing. However, I would never trust that drawing to be able to swear on it. Even less to write a certificate.
Yes, exactly what I suspected. Non-load-bearing walls, yes. But the problem now was that it was not known whether the walls were load-bearing or not.
Then I could agree that it could be information that the BRF could benefit from in the future. In this way, some agreement could have been reached anyway. Where BRF covers most of the cost, if not all.
If the board feels the situation is shaky, it falls on them to arrange an investigation. They have the legal responsibility here. If the board then finds that it really is a load-bearing wall, then they can tackle the whole thing with a firm hand. There is good legal support here.A AG A said: