- This topic has 8 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hello I live in Sydney and I am new to apartment living. I recently noticed a unit two floors above mine has a retractable awning installed on the underside of the balcony above theirs. I asked the strata manager if he could ask the committee if I could attach one in the same position on the balcony above my courtyard and he told me they said no. Can I do anything further about this or do I just have to accept their decision, despite someone else having an awning?
thanks
-
Replies
-
Put up a written proposal asking for a special resolution by-law allowing you to install an awning on common property, accepting the condition that you will maintain and repair the awning and the common property to which it is attached.
If they refuse, inform the strata manager (or committee, if you have one) that you plan to take action under section 232 (2) (below) for failure to exercise a function.
If they still say no, or don’t take steps to have the other awning removed, seek mediation then take them to NCAT.
Section 232 (2) Failure to exercise a function
For the purposes of this section, an owners corporation, strata committee or building management committee is taken not to have exercised a function if:
(a) it decides not to exercise the function, or
(b) application is made to it to exercise the function and it fails for 2 months after the making of the application to exercise the function in accordance with the application or to inform the applicant that it has decided not to exercise the function in accordance with the application.
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.
The committee can’t say no without holding a meeting – and as you are a member you should have been informed of the meeting and given the opportunity to state your case.
Sounds like this is one of those ad hoc committees of two or three where the strata manager, chair and secretary just make decisions – totally against the regulations.
Submit your by-law and a letter requesting a decision as soon as possible to the secretary and the strata manager. They will inevitably tell you that you’ll need to wait until the next AGM, but if that’s too far away, inform them that you will be seeking orders under section 232 (and will do so anyway if it’s rejected at the meeting).
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.
If the SM is proactive and gets a quote for something they recommend, that sounds good to me. Then they can better advise the committee more fully. But no, they shouldn’t be placing the order without at least an OK from the treasurer.
@millswills1 said:
Yes I agree entirely replacing asbestos doors is essential and I am happy it is happening I just wasn’t sure if that sort of thing should be run by the entire committee. I assume it was discussed with the treasurer. Thanks for your response SirHumphreyProbably a grey area. If there is an approved budget in place for maintenance that could reasonably include this then it might be fine for the treasurer to just OK it. I’d prefer that the treasurer keeps the rest of the committee informed about anything like this that is more than a trivial expense. The committee has a responsibility to supervise the treasurer and SM.
Also depends a bit on how proactive the committee is and the extent to which things are explicitly and specifically delegated (ideally) or just vaguely left to the SM to do their best (less ideal). Some places just leave everything to the SM and get upset if they don’t just get on with it. Other places get upset if the committee has not given explicit approval before the SM spends anything. Cultures vary! Better to be clear and ask if in doubt.