MCST facade inspection responsibility in a Singapore condominium rests on one legal fact: external walls are common property, so the management corporation receives the PFI notice and pays from common funds. Unit owners carry their windows and add-ons. Developers drop out long before year 20. BCA consulted on strata reforms in March 2026. This blog walks you through each party and facade inspection compliance for condominiums.
Who is responsible for periodic facade inspection in a condominium?
The management corporation (MCST) is responsible. It receives the facade inspection notice as owner of the common property, appoints the Competent Person, and pays from funds that every subsidiary proprietor contributes to in proportion to share value.
The Building Control Act defines the owner of a strata development in layers: each subsidiary proprietor owns their lot, the MCST owns the common property, and a subsidiary management corporation owns any limited common property. BCA’s PSI guidance states that the MCST assumes responsibility as building owner in strata-titled developments, and its PFI FAQ tells unit owners to route requests about their own unit’s facade through the MCST.
The strata statute points the same way. Section 29(1)(e) of the Building (Strata Management) Act requires an MCST to comply with any notice from a public authority ordering repairs or other work to the subdivided building or common property, and section 40(2) spreads the resulting contributions across lots by share value.
Worth noting: the law’s names changed recently. The Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act was renamed the Building (Strata Management) Act on 1 October 2025, and its building maintenance provisions moved into Part 4A of the Building Control Act on the same date.
Non-strata buildings work differently. Where a building with 2 or more flats is not subdivided, section 28(4) of the Building Control Act requires the flat owners to jointly appoint one Competent Person.
Is the external wall common property or part of my unit?
The external wall is common property, even where it encloses your unit. Since the 2017 amendments took effect on 1 February 2019, the Act counts every structural element of the building, and the waterproof membrane attached to an external wall or roof, as common property whether or not it sits inside a lot.
The Act’s definition of common property gives concrete examples. Foundations, load-bearing walls, columns, beams and slabs are listed, and so is an external wall, roof or facade used or capable of being used by occupiers of 2 or more lots. That covers almost every condominium elevation.
The duty that follows is broad. Section 29(1)(b) requires the MCST to properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair, including renewing or replacing it where reasonably necessary. Spalled concrete on a ledge, hollow plaster below a bedroom window and a failed membrane behind the cladding all sit with the MCST.
In practice, confusion starts at the internal face. Paint, wallpaper and tiles on the inside of your unit are finishes within your lot, while the wall structure and its external membrane belong to the common property. Rain seeping through a cracked external wall is therefore an MCST repair, and the fix calls for external wall waterproofing rather than repainting the room.
Who pays for windows, grilles and air-con brackets flagged in a PFI report?
The unit owner pays for windows, grilles and shutters that form part of their flat, and for exterior features they installed themselves. The MCST pays for windows and doors where one side faces common property, such as a unit’s main door onto a common corridor.
The split comes from two statutes. The Building Control Act names the “person responsible” for a window, grille or shutter that is part of a flat as the owner of that flat, or whoever has daily charge and control of it. Section 29(1)(b)(iv) of the Building (Strata Management) Act makes the MCST maintain each door, window and cover over an opening where a side is part of the common property.
BCA’s windows safety guidance puts the practical burden on homeowners: check, clean and change, using an approved window contractor registered under workhead RW01 for replacements.
Add-ons follow ownership. An air-conditioning bracket, awning or planter frame a subsidiary proprietor fixed to the building is that owner’s exterior feature. The Building Control Act’s definition of person responsible includes whoever has charge and control of an exterior feature’s maintenance, which captures the owner who installed it. Section 37(3) of the Act bars improvements that affect the building’s appearance without MCST authority, and section 37(4A) lets the MCST order the owner to remedy an unauthorised one at the owner’s own cost.
The cleaner approach is to tag every defect in the PFI report as common property or owner item before any repair tender goes out. An untagged defect list turns a repair tender into an argument about brackets.
Does the developer pay for facade defects in a condominium?
Only in the early years. The developer rectifies defects in the unit, the housing project and the common property that appear during the 12-month defects liability period, and by the first PFI at year 20 its exposure has closed.
URA’s guidance to buyers sets the defects liability period at 12 months from the earlier of the date the developer delivers vacant possession, or the 15th day after the buyer receives notice that the TOP has been issued and infrastructure works are complete. Defects reported in that window are the developer’s to fix at its own cost.
After that, an MCST would need a negligence claim. Section 24B of the Limitation Act 1959 bars actions for latent damage from negligence after 15 years from the date of the act or omission, which for a construction defect points back to the original design or building works.
Line those dates against the PFI regime. A facade inspection notice can only be served once a building is more than 20 years past its last whole-building TOP, so the first PFI arrives at least 5 years after the longstop has run. Whatever the Competent Person finds is the MCST’s to fund.
A developer still holding unsold units is simply a subsidiary proprietor of those lots and pays contributions like any other owner.
Our position: councils in years 1 to 15 should commission their own facade condition checks. Debonded tiles and early concrete spalling documented while the developer is still answerable are cheaper to resolve than concrete repair on facades funded entirely by residents later.
How does limited common property change who pays for the facade?
Hardly at all. Limited common property cannot include the facade, because the Act’s definition excludes foundations, columns, beams, supports, walls and roofs of any building, and every window installed in an external wall.
Limited common property is common property set aside for the exclusive benefit of some, but not all, lots, such as a pool deck serving one tower of a mixed development. Under section 29(3), once it is created, the MCST stops maintaining it and a subsidiary management corporation takes over.
Because walls, roofs and external windows are carved out, the facade stays with the MCST even in a development with several subsidiary management corporations. A retail podium’s external walls, for example, remain common property for PFI purposes.
The subsidiary management corporation still matters for features attached to its areas. The Building Control Act names the owner of limited common property, or its managing agent, as the person responsible for exterior features forming part of it. Where a feature straddles common property and limited common property, section 25E(6) makes both owners jointly and severally responsible for complying with a notice to maintain.
In practice, mixed developments should agree the boundary line for shade structures, signage frames and canopies before the Competent Person’s drops begin.
Can the MCST recover facade repair costs from a unit owner?
Yes, in defined situations. The MCST can recover costs as a debt where it carries out work a unit owner was required to do, where a unit owner’s wilful or negligent act caused the damage, or where it remedies an unauthorised improvement.
Section 30(1) lets the MCST carry out work required of a subsidiary proprietor by a public authority notice that the owner ignored, and section 30(3) makes the cost recoverable, including from a later buyer of the lot. Section 30(6) covers expenditure made necessary by any person’s wilful or negligent act or breach of the by-laws. Section 37(4A) covers unauthorised improvements that affect the building’s appearance.
Disputes have a forum. Section 101(1)(b) empowers a Strata Titles Board to settle the liability of a subsidiary proprietor to bear the costs of work the MCST carried out.
Water ingress is where many of these arguments begin. Section 101(8) presumes a defect sits in the lot or common property above when dampness shows on the ceiling below, which shapes disputes over ceiling leaks between units. Leaks traced to the external wall or its membrane stay with the MCST, which is one more reason preventing water damage in condos belongs in the common budget.
What do the council and managing agent actually do?
The council runs the MCST between general meetings, and the managing agent carries out day-to-day management under contract. Neither pays facade costs personally, but both carry legal exposure.
The Building Control Act names the owner of the common property, or the managing agent appointed with charge and control of its maintenance, as the person responsible for exterior features on common property. A notice to maintain under section 25E can therefore be served on the managing agent, and failing to comply carries fines of up to $20,000, imprisonment of up to 12 months, and $250 for each further day after conviction.
Strata management has grown into a large responsibility. Introducing the 2017 amendments, then Second Minister for National Development Desmond Lee noted that “when the Act was introduced in 2005, there were just 170,000 strata units.”
BCA’s March 2026 consultation said many elected council members are lay people, some overly reliant on the managing agent. It noted that the free council e-learning course launched in 2024 had low take-up, and asked whether training should become mandatory. It also noted managing agents can be appointed for up to 3 years, but face an annual review at every AGM.
Where this breaks down is a council that treats the PFI as the managing agent’s file. The appointment, the fee and the repair budget all need council decisions and general meeting votes.
Which resolutions does an MCST need to fund the inspection and repairs?
Most facade costs need only ordinary resolutions. Contributions to the management fund and sinking fund are set by ordinary resolution under section 39, and like-for-like repairs are a duty the MCST performs without any special vote.
Section 39(2)(e) lets an MCST decide by ordinary resolution to meet an expected future liability, such as the next PFI, from the sinking fund. Section 39(3) requires an ordinary resolution to raise extra contributions when the MCST cannot pay a liability immediately; this is the special levy.
The line that changes the vote is repair versus improvement. Renewing or replacing failed facade elements falls under the duty in section 29(1)(b). Improving or enhancing common property, such as adding canopies or changing the facade design, needs a special resolution under section 29(1)(d), which BCA’s consultation paper describes as 75% of share value of valid votes cast.
BCA’s 2026 strata consultation flagged two problems that hit facade budgets directly. Cost estimates set when an MCST is first formed are rarely updated, and motions to raise sinking funds or levies are defeated when works benefit only specific blocks. The facade duty in section 29 does not vary by block, so a council should present facade repairs as estate-wide compliance, backed by long-range condo maintenance planning.
Conclusion
In a condominium, the law settles most facade costs before any argument starts. The external wall, its structure and its membrane are common property, so the MCST pays for the PFI and its repairs. Unit owners answer for their windows and anything they bolted on. The developer’s window closes years before the first inspection. What remains is governance: tag each defect correctly and pass the right resolution.
Send Proof-Tech your PFI report and we will split the remedial scope into common property and unit owner items, with an itemised quotation your council can table at the next general meeting.
Frequently asked questions
Can a unit owner ask the PFI inspector to check their unit?
Yes, through the MCST. BCA’s PFI FAQ states a unit owner can request that the Competent Person appointed by the management corporation inspect their unit’s facade, subject to the Competent Person’s discretion and the MCST’s arrangements. Owners cannot appoint their own Competent Person for the building’s periodic facade inspection.
If I sell my condo, do I still pay the special levy for facade repairs?
You remain liable for contributions levied and unpaid when you cease to be the owner. Section 40(4) of the Building (Strata Management) Act limits a former subsidiary proprietor’s liability to those unpaid amounts plus interest, and section 40(3) makes the buyer jointly and severally liable for contributions already levied on the lot.
What happens if the MCST refuses to repair the facade?
A unit owner can apply to a Strata Titles Board under section 101 of the Building (Strata Management) Act over the MCST’s failure to perform its duties. BCA can also serve a notice to maintain under section 25E of the Building Control Act, with fines of up to $20,000 for non-compliance.
