- This topic has 33 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi there,
Great site. Thanks. If we have “exclusive use” of the flat rooftop of our apartment building (which was once the old laundries), and are turning the old laundries into an office, with kitchen and bathroom, should we compensate the other five unit owners for the value we’re adding to our property? Is there a rule about this? And how much? Thanks again!
Webmaster’s Note: One week and many responses after posting this, Libbylou admitted that she is not the owner of the apartment referred to here, but is another owner in the building. We only discovered this after much discussion on this topic. The following posts are interesting and informative but you should perhaps read them with the benefit of that knowledge. – JimmyT
-
Replies
-
The by-law has to be registered with the Titles Office. You should check with the strata manager.
I don’t know the ambit of the permission you have been given and who gave it, have you got Council approval? I’m a bit confused because at the start of this you didn’t mention having been given approval. As a few of us said, exclusive use is different to being given approval to change common property.
Libbylou said:
… our apartment is 177 units, so a grand total of 459 units, so why does our unit entitlement sit at 244 units…?OK, I’m confused. Is your unit entitlement 177 or 244? In any case, unit entitlements are not calculated solely on the size of the total inhabitable area.
Also, if I’m reading this correctly, the roof doesn’t actually belong to you. It’s still common property and you only have exclusive use of it. It is not part of your lot and under certain, admittedly extreme and unlikely circumstances, could theoretically be resumed by the Owners Corp.
Even if your predecessor had bought the roof outright, I suspect, based on some of your other comments, that the other owners at the time might have decided it wasn’t worth the cost and hassle to adjust everyone’s unit entitlements.
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.
Its definitely a better option if any common property damage is assessed and rectified under the commitees watch so you know independently what the scope of works is and that it is professionally corrected. Otherwise their DIY fix up might be poor quality, short lasting, not be safe, affect your building insurance, you wont know who did it or what exactly was done or have warrantee claim paperwork and it sets a poor precedent. You pay for it then get reimbursed by the offender.
Do you have a car space attached to the lot?
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.
It is my understanding that only a right of ownership will impact the unit entitlements. A grant of exclusive use is not a right of ownership.
As for needing council approval for the proposed work …. I am pretty sure you would require council approval. You are changing the use of that space.
I personally think that your OC should not have approved your renovations to the roof area. It appears that you may be preparing to rent this space out being that you are creating a kitchen, bathroom, and an office that you are saying that you will use as a bedroom, and possibly make a profit from it. In my opinion this is not what the original grant of exclusive use would ever have envisaged.
You might not have this intention but a subsequent purchaser may think differently.
Adding a second kitchen usually denotes an intention to create an additional dwelling. I don’t believe council will approve of this addition … even the addition of a ‘wet bar’ raises red flags with many councils.
I don’t believe that a grant of exclusive use would allow for this to occur. You do not own this space. The OC owns this space.
My thoughts are that if you undertake an activity that may be in breach of the Act or any other Act then you risk having your grant of exclusive use revoked.
Lillylou
I’ve watched this thread with some interest.
To me it seems that in the dim dark past some deal has been done with a former owner of your lot.
Before you proceed any further with your plans, I would find the meeting minutes where the exclusive use was granted.
I would then use this to formalise your exclusive use by getting a by law granted. The bylaw is the only means you have to enforce your rights.
For example, without a bylaw (which I understand you do not have now) any other lot owner would be able to enter the roof area and you would not be able to prevent them.
The bylaw giving you exclusive use entitles you to claim an ” ownership” of the roof area and prevent others trespassing on it.
You also need to be aware that exclusive use arrangements often come with a requirement to pay a rent to the OC. You are getting an ongoing benefit, but the OC only ever got one payment ( if it actually was made).
Your development almost certainly requires council approval. Since you do not own the roof space, it will be the OC making the application. Therefore it’s not just a case of getting a special resolution passed (75% passing the motion), you may need a unanimous resolution
I think you have a difficult road to travel.
Robert
From the very first posting on this thread, I had a feeling something was amiss. It was the phrasing of the questions and their intent that seemed a bit “off” but I put that down to someone being unfamiliar with the subject or, indeed, the whole business of posting on a website.
It seems, Flatchatters, that my first instincts were correct: we’ve been had.
In a personal message last night, Libbylou admitted that she wasn’t the owner of the apartment with the exclusive use of the roof, but was in fact one of the other owners in the building, wanting to know if she should support or reject the proposals.
In her defence, there was no malice in her deception: she claims she merely wanted an independent and objective opinion.
However, why she would go to such elaborate lengths to deceive the Forum, its editors and readers is beyond me. This wasn’t one question, it was a continuing thread based on a fundamental lie that expected all the people who volunteer their time and expertise to give an honest assessment.
Anonymity is one of the fundamental principles of this Forum because it allows all of you to ask your questions without any fear of retribution from the people involved in your disputes.
I police that rigorously and even change the screen names of newcomers who haven’t bothered to read the instruction not to use their real name or, especially, email address as their screen name.
I believe the ability to ask questions in complete confidence is one of the reasons we have recently clicked over 22,000 posts in more than 5000 different topics.
In her message, Libbylou also raised the issue of whether our answers were biased in favour of the questioners. I suppose what she was saying was, do we tell people what they want to hear?
The answer to that (as you can see from the previous discussion) is a resounding “no”. We endeavour to give people the best advice we can and, when the situation is complex and/or the stakes are high, we strongly recommend they seek professional legal advice.
But even lawyers are more likely to tell you how to achieve what you want, rather than just rattle off what the law says and let you work it out for yourself. If you want to ask a question and get a blunt recitation of the law (plus a potentially suspect interpretation) contact Fair Trading.
So if we are guilty of anything, it’s that we offer advice that helps readers to achieve their aims – or modify their ambitions – within the parameters of the law.
We have even given advice to Airbnb hosts, even though that organisation has been encouraging people to breach their planning laws and by-laws and is, in my opinion, a greater threat to apartment communities than dodgy developers, incompetent managers and bad neighbours, all rolled into one.
I was sorely tempted to delete the preceding discussion but, regardless of its origin, it has a lot of good information that may be helpful to other Flatchatters in similar situations.
Meanwhile – protected by our policy of anonymity – only Libbylou knows who she is and if she (if she is, in fact, a she) wants to come on here and apologise to you all, I’ll be happy to let her.
Otherwise, I think we’ve heard more than enough from that quarter.
By the way, if you are wondering about the security of this website, I have Libbylou’s real email address and IP address on file from her registration. But I would never reveal either unless it was something much, much more serious than telling fibs and pretending to be someone you aren’t.
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 thought that was the case, it didn’t make sense. I don’t mind, but being upfront is preferable.