Two thirds of our apartment block was built twenty years ago, and has an integrated fire safety alert system that is due to be upgraded this year. The plan would normally be that the management company would pay for this from the sinking fund. However the remaining one-third of apartments each has their own fire safety system, that the owners are expected to pay for maintaining themselves, even though their system connects to the existing one for fire alerts. In effect, this means that the owners of the newer apartments would be paying twice, as they contribute equally to the sinking fund. One solution proposed is that the owners of the original two thirds of apartments pay for this year's upgrade, but how can that be managed? It will get messy when these owners claim (quite rightly) that they have paid into the sinking fund all along, and should not have to dig into their pockets again. Another concern is that if the owners of the newer apartments are left to pay for their own upgrades some years from now, it might not happen in all cases, putting everyone at risk.
Would it be fair to use the sinking fund now to pay for upgrading the two-thirds of older apartments, and commit to pay for the upgrades of the newer apartments when the time comes?
Would it be fair to use the sinking fund now to pay for upgrading the two-thirds of older apartments, and commit to pay for the upgrades of the newer apartments when the time comes?