- This topic has 17 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
In our 6 Lots (equal units) 30 years old building, we currently have lattice screens in four of the courtyard dividing fences with the remaining two courtyards in timber.
They are all in disrepair and require replacement.
OC/EC advised that the cost of replacement is at the owner’s expense.
At our EGM, there was no majority rule – three owners voted for colorbond and the other three voted for timber.
Our adjacent neighbours have also advised our OC that they would like to replace the existing timber boundary fence with a colorbond fence. Quotes to date received for both timber and colorbond indicates the pricing to be the same.
Mediation at DFT failed to find a resolution.
Two owners are now taking each other to NCAT to decide once and for all on the fencing materials…one owner wants colorbond and the other owner wants timber.
They are not replacing “like” for “like” as they both have lattice screens for a courtyard dividing fence.
The argument being brandied about is that this is NOT common property and the appearance of the courtyard fence cannot be seen from outside the Lot.
Most of the blocks in our street have colorbond fencing.
Looking ahead, especially with the neighbours wanting colorbond, I feel that it would be better to have uniformity and I have referred to the Fencing Act but it falls on deaf ears.
Is there anything that we can do to make all the owners see sense and be on the same page?
-
Replies
-
I would like to ask a Question …WE have a property 1 of 15 villas , recently in a wind one of the fences came down between two lots , we are told that it is common property by strata , insurance co has rejected claim saying there were to many faults in fence , other words was not kept in a serviceable condition , strata I think wants to raise a levy to cover , has anyone had that happen to them …Thanks Selton
Just to add a little clarity to both issues above, this is what the Who’s Responsible document says about fences:
If they are shown as a thick line on the strata plan then they are deemed a common wall and the responsibility of the owners corporation.
However, if they are shown as a thin, dotted or no line on the strata plan then they are treated in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and are treated as follows:
1. Divides two lots. Each owner is responsible 50/50
2. Divides one lot from common property. The owner is responsible 50% & the owners corporation is responsible 50%
3. Divides one lot from an adjoining property that isn’t part of the strata. The owners corporation are responsible for 100% of its share
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
@Selton 123 said:
… one of the fences came down between two lots , we are told that it is common property by strata …“Strata” (whoever they are) are wrong. Look at the previous item – the fence is jointly owned by the two lots and they should pay for the replacement.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Would the vote make any difference if it was a ‘poll’ vote – i.e. counted by unit entitlements rather than a show of hands? That would surely make a difference – unless everyone is on precisely the same UEs.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Does the chair get a casting vote where you are?
Are the members all agreed on colour, whether in colour bond or timber? Perhaps if those favouring one material or the other might split once colour is discussed.
A compromise perhaps: colour bond might be better for the street face but timber could be used between units (assuming the layout is like that)?
In NSW the Chairperson does not get a casting vote. In this situation it is up to each side to convince one other owner to change their vote. They do this by laying out all of the facts such as cost (not just initial cost but ongoing costs), durability, longevity, aesthetics etc. Eventually some one will change their mind.
NB: If you are in area where termites are prevalent then colorbond may be the best option.
Whilst the strata act describes who is responsible for a fence, the law governing fences is the dividing fences act ( in NSW).
The act only says a suitable fence needs to be erected and it needs to be agreed by the owners. So if the fence is between two lots, then these owners need to agree on a fence and split the cost.
i don’t see anywhere in the strata act that allows the owners corporation to dictate the type of fence between lots .
if it’s a coo on property fence, the owners corporation has a say as to the type of fence
if it’s between a lot and common property, then the lot owner and the owners corporation need to be in agreement.
the dividing fences act is also very specific in how to remedy disputes.
Robert
The strata scheme can become involved in the choice of fencing materials if the fencing material impacts on the Appearance of a Lot by-law (dependent upon whether the scheme has this type of by law).
If the purpose of the Appearance of a Lot by-law is to create uniformity of appearance then fencing materials will probably need to be uniform regardless of where the fences are located.
Most OCs will have a rule/bylaw/Article requiring approval from the OC for erection or alteration of a structure at a unit. So, if it is a boundary fence between two units, those two unit owners would need OC approval to erect or alter the structure.
I was having the same issue.
@SofiaMagnus said:
I was having the same issue.And??? Tell us more!
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Hi I have been off the scene for a while , I was selton123, I have our Strata Plan for our Villas in NSW ,
I argued about the line between the two lot owners on that plan , they the Owners Corp said that it is a bold line it is OC area of responsibility , as yet there has been nothing said about who paid for the fence , on that plan that bold line is actually two lines drawn with a little short line connecting the two lines at a sharp angle from a distance it does look like a bold line …the Boundary fence that encompasses the complex has some lines bold and some thin , the thin line of that boundary line is at the back of our Lot , at the moment there is no fence there at all ……..so it is interesting