In the absence of anything to the contrary, and in the absence of any specific repairing covenant in the lease and in the absence of any description in the lease as to whether these balconies are structural or not it is highly likely that if there was an argument in court the court would decide that the doctrine of mutual benefit and burden applied. That is a doctrine whereby anyone that uses something also has to repair it.
You have the benefit of using the terrace and the person underneath has the benefit of using it as part of their roof or ceiling. Therefore, the maintenance of it would be paid for in proportion to the benefit received which is probably going to be 50% for each of you.
The management company could possibly maintain that they were under some kind of mistaken impression that they were previously liable for the repairs which is why they did them. So, whilst it is an argument, it is by no means decisive.
Can I clarify anything for you?
The difficulty with interpreting the roof structure as common fabric is that this is not just roof structure. It is a roof terrace on which you can walk and which has the potential for wearing out as a result of walking on it. I am not saying that is what has happened but you can see the potential problem. However if the lease includes roof terraces as part of common roof build then it is the landlord or management company that is responsible.
Just because any architect or building surveyor say that the roof terraces are part of the structure would only be good evidence if the whole issue got to court to have the matter determined by the judge.
Custom and practice and what has gone before is also good evidence that the management company previously accepted these were in fact part of the structure of the building and hence, maintainable by them but they can always say they maintained them by mistake and you are not able to rely on their mistake to continue to enforce them doing the repairs.
If they steadfastly refuse to maintain the area than the only alternative is to take them to court for breach of landlords repairing covenant and for the court to decide whether it is a breach and within their remit, or not.
Please don’t forget to rate the service positive. Thanks.
I agree with you that if the balustrades are wooden there is a covenant for the management company to be responsible for painting external woodwork, then the balustrades are their responsibility.
You would have to prove that the lack of maintenance has caused them to rot. That might not be as easy as it seems because old-fashioned wooden window frames used to rot even if they were painted.
The management company cannot use the same argument that they painted the balustrades by mistake quite simply because the obligation is in the lease.