Current Page

[jetski]

We live in a small apartment block of 7. We recently have had several attempts at break ins. As a result we have decided to install security roller shutters on our windows to improve security and prevent intruders entering. There are other units in surrounding blocks which have these types of security roller shutters. I requested that it be an agenda item at our AGM. I only wanted to inform the other owners that we were going to have them installed. I advised that the shutters would be the same colour and materials as existing security screens on the other units in our block. The owners at the meeting agreed however, the strata manager said we could not install them as I had to have a by law drafted and the by law had to be approved and registered before the installation could take place. I pointed out to the agent that it was complying with by law 5 that allowed us to install safety and security devices and that with permission from the other owners we were not breaching common property by laws. Since the owners already agreed we were not breaching any by laws. The strata manager said we were breaching the by law relating the changing the appearance of the lot and therefore had to have a special by law drafted and approved. The other units already have security screens on their windows, we do not have any security screens so I don't see how this is changing the appearance as our unit is already different in appearance. Furthermore, we will be using aluminum shutters the same colour and material as the existing windows and other units security screens. Do we really need a by law for this as the other unit owners in adjacent blocks do not have special by laws for this. I called OFT several times and get a different answer each time. I want the right answer so I know what to do.

Topic

[Anonymous]

5 Damage to common property (Quoted from model bylaws).

(1) An owner or occupier of a lot must not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property except with the prior written approval of the owners corporation.

(2) An approval given by the owners corporation under clause (1) cannot authorise any additions to the common property.

(3) This by-law does not prevent an owner or person authorised by an owner from installing:

(a) any locking or other safety device for protection of the owner’s lot against intruders or to improve safety within the owner’s lot, or

(b) any screen or other device to prevent entry of animals or insects on the lot, or

(c) any structure or device to prevent harm to children, or

(d) any device used to affix decorative items to the internal surfaces of walls in the owner’s lot,unless the device is likely to affect the operation of fire safety devices in the lot or to reduce the level of safety in the lots or common property.

(4) Any such locking or safety device, screen, other device or structure must be installed in a competent and proper manner and must have an appearance, after it has been installed, in keeping with the appearance of the rest of the building.

 

Clearly you can install a security device. You can take the matter to mediation arguing that the roller shutter does not change the appearance along with photos. The EC and strata manager will probably chicken out. It only costs $70 odd and postage!

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

TiredOfStrata (what a sad name) has a point – but only if these by-laws apply in this building.  Buildings don't have to adopt the model by-laws and some do then amend them.  But working on the basis that this by-law or something like it applies, then he's right, go to Fair Trading for mediation.  I can't say what I would do in this situation but I can tell you, if I firmly believed I wasn't breaking any by-laws, it would be a more direct action.

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.

Quote

[jetski]

we have since been told that we still can not install because we are in breach of bylaw 17 –Appearance of Lot

(1)        The owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the prior written approval of the Owners Corporation, maintain within the lot anything visible from outside the lot that, viewed from outside the lot, is not in keeping with the rest of the building.

 

and we have been told we can not install them unless they all approve. I advised them that it is still in keeping with the appearance of the rest of the building and other lots and all the lots look different anyway since some of the units have security screens, some security grills, some flyscreens, some metal bars. They are all similar but not exactly the same. We will be keeping the same colour scheme and it will not be drastically changing the appearance. Anyhow most of the windows are covered by trees and are not clearly visible. I don't understand why everything has to be so difficult. Any advice would be great.

Quote

[Jimmy-T]

I think this is one of those situations where you ask the EC or strata manager to undertake mediation with you, either through the Community Justice Centres or, if you don't mind paying $70, through Fair Trading.

You want them to justify refusal specifically … not just some vague reference to looking “different” so that you know what yoiu have to do to comply with their ruling.  If they can't provide that information, it's going to go against them if you take them to the CTTT.

Also, if you know someone who's handy with Photoshop (your average 12-year-old kid, for instance) get them to mock up a picture of what the building will look like with your shutters in place. 

Again, the EC will have to be specific about their objections if you can show that your shutters aren't in breach of the by-law.

The key question is what is 'not in keeping with the rest of the building.' That's a matter of opinion, not fact.

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.

Quote

[struggler]

Personally, I would write to the EC and advise that you would be seeking to go to mediation and that in the meantime, you would hold the EC/managing agent liable for any damage to your personal property/belongings in the event of another break-in/attempted break-in.

I have used similar wording in my past apartment when water leaking through my garage roof (common property area above garage)  ran over a power point in the garage! Constantly.  The OC fluffed about and said they had tried to fix it and it didn't work so too bad.  I pointed out that the water ran over the power point and under  my metal garage door to the driveway outside which had public access.  I advised that I would hold them liable should this water cause electrocution to any person passing.  Guess what – they managed to fix it (and install new wiring/power point in my garage too).  And it was done very quickly! 

Infact, mentioning liability has worked with council too in getting permission to remove a large tree when it was mentioned that it could cause damage to person/property in the complex. 

Quote

[Author]

Replies