I am sorry that you, i.e Scottie and Jimmy -T, do not see the relevance and logical sequence of the sections quoted in support of my argument, that by-laws in NSW requiring renovation bonds, are invalid, just as they are in Queensland.
I acknowledge that there is no specific section in the NSW legislation stating that a by-law must not impose a monetary liability on the owner of a lot (other than an exclusive use by-law) as there is in Queensland.
However section 136(2) states that a by-law has no force or effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with this or any other Act or law. Also the owners corporation can only do the things which it is authorised to do under the SSMA 2015.
When a lot owner undertakes either cosmetic work (s109) and or minor renovations (s110) there is a requirement under both these sections that any damage to common property must be repaired by the lot owner. In the unlikely event that the damage is not repaired by the lot owner, then the OC may take action against the lot owner or carry out the work itself and recover the costs as a debt.[s120(5)].
Requiring a renovation bond in advance subverts the scheme of the Act in regard to owner renovations. What rights does the lot owner have, under the Act ,when the OC refuses to return the bond at all, or only returns a portion of the bond? In my strata block all the renovation bonds have been deposited to the Administration Fund and have been used to increase working capital.
The OC, in my strata block has refused to return renovation bonds even though there has been no damage to common property. The amount of the renovation bond was not specified in the by-law and is determined by the strata committee on a case by case basis.
Finally, I am only interested in the strata legislation being correctly interpreted and followed by all the people involved in the strata industry. However this has not been happening, since each group considers their own vested interests and there is definitely a bias in favour of owners corporations.