- This topic has 5 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
My queries relate to modifications to help simplify the process for owners and at the same time ensure our Owners Corp is protected:
If our Owners Corp approves a list of what we consider to be “minor” modifications, providing the approval process was done properly and on record, would future owners be legally responsible for those modifications? I assume not and therefore “minor” modifications would need to be carefully thought through and not venture into areas that might be considered “major” that would require a by-law to attach ongoing responsibility to future owners.
If we then wanted to approve a list of “major” modifications in one bylaw, can we do this? Or do we have to take out separate ByLaws for each item?
-
Replies
-
If our Owners Corp approves a list of what we consider to be “minor” modifications, providing the approval process was done properly and on record, would future owners be legally responsible for those modifications?
I’m not sure that anything that affects common property can be considered a “minor” modification. And if the changes don’t affect common property then the responsibility for them lies with the lot owners.
I assume not and therefore “minor” modifications would need to be carefully thought through and not venture into areas that might be considered “major” that would require a by-law to attach ongoing responsibility to future owners.
Fair Trading’s Common Property Memorandum is a good place to start and strata law allows you to adopt that in one fell swoop via a by-law. By the way the regulation supporting it specifically forbids redefining what is and isn’t common property.
If we then wanted to approve a list of “major” modifications in one bylaw, can we do this? Or do we have to take out separate ByLaws for each item?
I’m not sure that a strata scheme can use by-laws to reassign what is minor or major modifications.
And you need to have separate by-laws for each reno project to some extent because the lot owner must agree to take responsibility for the changes they make to common property. You really don’t want the owners corp to be stuck with responsibility for changes made during a reno, which is the default position if the owner doesn’t sign up to a common property by-law.
This would certainly be worth running past a strata lawyer (have a look at the ads on this page) but I would suggest that you might be able to draw up a catch-all by-law that allowed changes under the terms of Section 109, Section 110 and Section 111 of the Act and Section 27 (Common Property Memorandum) and Section 28 of the Regulations, plus but not exclusively, any changes specific to that project.
Thus you could have something approaching an off-the-peg common property rights by-law that could be easily adapted for each particular owner and their project.
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.
I am not sure you are correct about the Common Property Memorandum over-riding other by-laws that set out what is minor, major or cosmetic in a building for renovations. The Note in Reg 27 says:-
“Any common property by-law or a by-law made under section 108 of the Act prevails over the by-law adopting the Memorandum if it is inconsistent with the Memorandum (see section 107(3) and (4) of the Act).”
So, in other by-laws you can re-define what may be a minor renovation, in accordance with Sections 107 and 108. But you can’t modify the content of the common property memorandum in the by-law that adopts the memorandum, apart from excluding specific items.
Absolutely correct, my mistake. I just wonder about self-interested committee members pushing through by-laws for acceptance by unwitting (or unengaged) owners that magically turn major renovations into minor ones.
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 Jimmy, two questions concerning the above discussions.
Our owners corporation approved at a General Meeting by special resolution that I can double glaze the doors and windows in my Lot under Minor Renovations. I have done the windows (under a previous SC) and have just received the quote for the doors. The current SC wants to hold an SC meeting before approving, or not, the works. Is this necessary? Even legal? Or just another way of controlling the matter? Basically, a personal vendetta against me.
In addition, the current SC and SM ensured a lot owner apply for a DA without notifying owners. It also approved the DA and changed our Bylaw re the matter, despite the owner, who is on the SC and is not an owner, misleading council regarding their application.
Under the new SSMA laws, what are my options please?
How do you apply for a DA without informing the other owners? Is this NSW? If so, the DA is supposed to be announced to all and sundry via a notice on the outside of the building. If it isn’t, you have grounds to appeal to Council that the DA was improperly advertised during the exhibition period.
I also don’t know what you mean by “…despite the owner, who is on the SC and is not an owner…”. Too many owners, SCs and acronyms to make sense of your post. SC can mean both Strata Chair and Strata Committee. It’s confusing.