Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’m not convinced by the “everybody’s in the same boat” argument. Even though everyone is inconvenienced more or less equally, at the end of the day the lot owners will also own improved common property. The tenants will be exactly where they started.
Everybody isn’t in the same boat. The landlord will pay for the improved common property through OC levies or sinking fund contributions and, true, they will benefit from the improvements to their property. The tenants will however enjoy the common property improvements with no change to rent, at least until the next review. It would be the same as if the landlord chose to install a new air conditioner (a lot improvement) during a tenancy causing a disruption to the property for a day. Agreeing to disagree, I contend that the tenants won’t be exactly where they started, but rather renting a (slightly) better property with no change to rent.
My mild confusion with the original poster was it appeared from the tone that the problem was for someone else (anybody else) to solve. Sometimes stuff just happens and we need to deal with it.
I’m a bit confused. I’m not sure whether your issue with this is with the works, with the strata manager, with the landlord or with your insurer. To me, at face value, this seems like a perfectly legitimate request from the strata manager and certainly no grounds for a rent reduction from your landlord. As you yourself have said, sometimes works need to be carried out. These things simply happen, it’s nobody’s fault.
And on the question of insurance, just give your insurer a call and discuss it with them. You might be surprised how understanding they turn out to be.
Process and evidence aside, a simple solution here in my view would be to apologise and simply be courteous and respectful of your neighbours moving forward. Clearly there is a pattern of noisy behaviour here to evoke the keeping of a diary by your neighbour and that this in itself must have been convincing enough for the strata manager to act.
Just as you are entitled to make reasonable noise, your neighbours are likewise entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property (perhaps more so at night). And just because it is your backyard does not make it a free-for-all.
If noise from your gatherings, or phone calls, or loud laughter, or barking dog, or air conditioner for that matter is causing a repeated disturbance to your neighbours and you choose to simply dig your heels in and persist, then they have a right to voice a complaint and be heard.
Simply apologising and showing a bit more courtesy moving forward may solve this problem rather than the slippery slope of disputes and mediation. Not to mention it is always nicer to have neighbours who we can be civil and friendly to.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This is just an opinion, I’m not a lawyer or expert.
I agree with the committee on this one. I cannot see that the owner who is living elsewhere and has rented out their lot has any rights to use the pool or any other part of the common property. As part of the lease agreement, surely the owner has conferred exclusive access and quiet enjoyment of the property to the tenant. This would include the apartment, the car parks (if any), and any/all common property which the occupier of the lot would normally have access to.
I have always said there is really no such thing as a bad dog – bad behaviour in dogs is the product of bad owners or human behaviour or neglect. It’s my animal welfare streak coming out sorry. I don’t think that the dog deserves any punishment, its barking is instinctive and because of its surroundings and threats it perceives. It’s owners’ choice of dwelling is inappropriate for it so it seems, but that is not the dog’s fault. Bark collars are painful and cruel and banned in many states and territories in Australia (see https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/is-the-use-of-electronic-dog-collars-legal/). Training is a possible answer – how this can be compelled I am not 100% sure as I’m no legal expert – however it is up to the owner to get off their backside and do it already. Training clubs near me are $2 per week for an hour, it is not expensive. I feel for you, I really do, but bark collars and treatments like that are simply cruel. Focus your energy on the owners, and please not to punish the dog.
There’s not an easy answer to that question, I don’t know where the onus lies as water leaks in apartments in my limited experience are notoriously hard to diagnose.
I had a leak from the apartment above that was coming down behind my plaster into my living room and bedroom for five years straight. It would soak the carpets along the skirting boards and I needed to wet vac up the water a couple of times each day as it would soak through and leave a damp and musty odour. Black mould grew in the shower as a result too. It would only happen in winter months and would happen every day, the water being completely clean and clear (so unlikely to be from the roof guttering).
The trouble was that it took five years to diagnose the problem. Each year I would report it to the OC and they would try and diagnose but their investigations were only ever on the surface, drilling holes in the plaster and investigating if my apartment was the cause. They were looking in the wrong place (I kept telling them that too). Hindering things unfortunately, the owners and tenants in the apartment above were not forthcoming with access or cooperation in any way over the years. When the OC finally acted with force and got their maintenance crew in, they got forced access to the apartment above and found their shower wall buckling out with a lake of water trapped behind, the plumbers were amazed with that they saw. Their shower connections were simply not sealed properly. So the OC maintenance crew stepped in and repaired it themselves as an urgent work order, billing the owner for their costs (the owner was in London at that time).
We could now safely replace carpets and tiles knowing the problem was solved. Our home would be ours once more. Damage bill for us – recarpeting our apartment as the carpet and underlay were rotten and replacing the plaster and wall tiles in the bathroom to get rid of the black mould. We asked for zero – basically because we treated it as a minor renovation and improvement, and also we were sick of jumping through hoops and fighting a neighbour who was just plain nasty about it.
In your case though, you might have more luck with your neighbour in finding a good middle ground by having a chat. At least they live in your building which helps!
In Victoria as a landlord, I was not allowed to deny a dog in my apartment for lease. I made an effort to assess the tenants for responsible pet ownership at the time of leasing. I did turn down a tenant because she had four cats, that was too much for my apartment. My last tenant though didn’t disclose his dog, but it was no big deal. But that was me.
Back to your point about the pet bond though, I don’t see the need. Your recarpeting and repainting would’ve been necessary anyway – 11 years and carpet would have been stained and threadbare in spots, paint would have scuffed, plaster chipped, effectively fully depreciated – and you def. added more than $11,000 of value to the property if you were to sell it. The damage to your apartment was surely not all because of the dog. I’m sure 11 years of human tenancy had a little to do with it! It’s just the price you pay as a landlord.