- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 12 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi Flatchat,
The NSW strata plan where I live have adopted the model by laws.
The particular by law below is currently on the next general meeting agenda.
8 Children playing on common property
An owner or occupier of a lot must not permit any child for whom the owner or occupier is responsible, unless accompanied by an adult exercising effective control, to be or remain on common property that is a laundry, car parking area or other area of possible danger or hazard to children.
The OC wish to change the by law so as to stop children playing on the driveway as they believe that should an accident occur, e.g. child being hit by a car, the OC would be liable for any & all medical costs & would bankrupt the OC members/owners.
Is this true? Can an OC be liable for medical costs etc? Or would the building insurance cover it?
I am the only owner in the block with young children who ride bikes & scooters on the driveway with my supervision on a regular basis, no written or verbal complaints have been made to me thus far.
Could this be viewed as discriminatory or fraud against the minority?
Thanks
-
Replies
-
Hmmm. Speedbump or by-law? Wonder which one most owners would go for…
Depends whether they want a by-law that they can ignore or a speed hump that others can’t ignore.
Hmmm. Speedbump or by-law? Wonder which one most owners would go for…
Is this decision to be made by the owners or the management organisation?
I don’t think it’s discriminatory
It could be a safety issue to have children playing on driveways.
In any case, your by law allows children to play on common property whilst accompanied by a responsible adult. You say you provide the supervision, so you are covered.
If you don’t accompany your children, you will be in breach of the by law.
Asa an aside, modern strata buildings don’t cater for children’s play activities.
In my area I see an increasing number of families using the local park for their kids activities.
If a child is hit by a car, wouldn’t the vehicle’s CTP insurance cover it?
I don’t think this is about insurance, despite the arguments the committee is making to get support for the by-law. It’s about kids playing in an area designed for vehicular traffic and, possibly, some noise nuisance that isn’t being mentioned, perhaps to avoid identifying affected residents.
Comments have been made about liability for medical costs in an incident. I’m suggesting the car’s CTP insurance would cover it, not the OC insurance.
If you don’t accompany your children, you will be in breach of the by law.
Defining “accompany” would be a field day for lawyers.
As an aside, modern strata buildings don’t cater for children’s play activities. In my area I see an increasing number of families using the local park for their kids’ activities.
That’s what they’re there for. But some family friendly blocks do have a play area, often shared by a number of buildings. They should be a condition of planning approval (but they’re not).
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.
“Children must supervised…” seems to be a common sign around such areas. But again, somewhat vague, especially as far as the actual adults are concerned.
- The Owners Corporation is able to make rules concerning how the common property is usable or accessible to owners and others. This rule would appear to be allowable.
- It is unlikely to be regarded as discriminatory because the reason for the rule directly relates to the category of resident to which it applies. That is, it relates to the safety of children, and it applies to children. If a query were to be raised it would be assessed only on whether or not the safety of children had been properly assessed.
- It is unlikely to be regarded as fraud against a minority because it confers no specific advantage on those proposing or supporting the rule.
So I would recommend getting out there and collecting proxies.
The OC concern about possible liability has some justification. If an accident occurred and it was deemed the fault of the child or parent, then the OC might be sued on the basis that they did not take steps to prevent the child or parent putting themselves in danger – ie, imposing a ban or putting up warning signs. Whether that claim would succeed is unpredictable. For instance, if the OC passes the bylaw, but a parent was able to show that it was not enforced, then a claim might succeed! On the other hand, if there was no by-law, but plenty of warning signs for both drivers and parents, then the claim might fail. What would be certain is that there would be legal costs, but that should be covered by insurance.
If I’m watching my kids from the window, is that okay? Or do I have to be with them at the place of play?
This is exactly what I was referring to in my previous post. Some would argue that if you can see them, they are being supervised. Others might say that the potential for distractions in the home – phone calls, boiling kettles, text messages – mean they are merely being temporarily observed. This is the kind of thing that the NCAT tribunal appeals board might decide – but then they decided that pet bans were OK, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. And it would be cheaper to move somewhere with a safe play area than fight that beyond one NCAT hearing.
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.
“Children must supervised…” seems to be a common sign around such areas. But again, somewhat vague, especially as far as the actual adults are concerned.
If I’m watching my kids from the window, is that okay? Or do I have to be with them at the place of play?
Is this decision to be made by the owners or the management organisation?
You seem to not fully understand the management structure in strata schemes. Theoretically, the owners corporation (all owners) tells the strata committee what to do and the committee instructs the strata manager on getting it done.
In reality, the strata manager advises the strata committee on what they can and can’t do, the committee makes decisions on behalf of the owners corporation (if given the standard delegation to do so) but if a majority of owners don’t like the committee’s decisions, they can overturn them.
There are exceptions to this – such as decisions that the law says can only be made at a general meeting of strata owners – but that’s the way it works on most issues, in most schemes most of the time.
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.