Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Hi there,
I can’t comment regarding responsibility – but I did have a query. Have you personally checked with Council regarding removal of the trees? If they are posing a hazard to users of the path, then they may be flexible. Perhaps you should contact them and request someone meet yourself and the arborist onsite for a discussion. Even if you have to pay for an application fee to get this done, you might be able to side step some of the potential legalities if you can get Council to agree.
Some Council’s will allow tree replacement also, i.e. removal of the offending tree provided a replacement is planted. Perhaps this can be mentioned, and the arborist can recommend something with a less intrusive root system.
Insurance has been mentioned a few times in this thread, in the capacity of a fail safe should someone injure themselves on the common property and make a claim against the owners corporation.
Does anyone know if an insurance company could refuse cover if an owners corporation defeated a motion to undertake a risk assessment (whs report, whatever you wish to name it) of the common property at an AGM?
Does anyone have any information about what an insurance company asks for in the event that a claim is made against an owners corporation? Would they try to establish whether an owners corporation did everything in their power to mitigate risks?
Just concerned this could be problematic in the event that something does happen, and it comes to light that the owners corporation refused to undertake a safety audit. Likewise, if an Executive Committee undertook an audit that did not identify a risk that then caused an injury to someone? Worse case scenario, could the owners corporation then sue the Executive Committee if the owners corporation is not covered by insurance?
It seems like so much risk is associated with such comparatively little annual cost.
I’m interested to hear everyone’s thoughts and experience in regards to my queries above.
I believe that one aspect of passing a by-law is that it requires the consent of all affected owners – might be different in the ACT, but if consent was not provided then does that provide an avenue for the now negatively-affected owner for potential recourse?
azur said
A very timely topic as it currently affects our strata scheme.We have a rear fence that is required to be replaced due to damage sustained solely from the back neighbour’s tenants who constantly overshoot their parking spaces and allow rubbish to mount against the fence. This is the second fence that has been damaged beyond repair in 16 years.
At the AGM, the OC agreed that a new fence is required and the strata manager advised that we can claim it against our insurance so we would only be up for the cost of the excess – this was the only option given to us aside from covering 50% (the rear pty owner to pay the other 50%) of the total fence cost out of OC funds. After a colleague explained that the Dividing Fences Act 1991 regulates neighbours’ responsibilities towards dividing fences and there is provision where the dividing fence needs rebuilding or repairing because of negligent or deliberate damage caused by an adjoining owner (or by a person entering the land with their permission) that owner is liable for the entire cost of restoring it to a reasonable standard.
When I asked the strata manager why the OC was not advised as per the above, she dismissed it as a rather long & convoluted process to get the rear pty owner to pay for the entire cost of replacing the fence even though we have records going back over 16 years and photos of the current fence where it is clear that the damage was caused from the rear pty’s side – she then said that she would charge the OC $600 in order to represent us & this would effectively negate any benefit.
What is obvious from the above is that the strata manager does not care about what is in the OC’s best interests – it is easier for her to claim the fence on our insurance & the OC then carries the risk of the effect on claims history and the possibility of increasing our premiums and excess in the future from which the strata manager will benefit because of the commission structure so an obvious conflict that I can see no way of effectively managing in terms of acting in the OC’s best interests.
There will always be unscrupulous strata managers out there (as in every industry, there are people of this nature just waiting in the wings) but it sounds to me like your particular manager is just exhibiting signs of laziness rather than any particular desire to pocket an additional sum of money, that may be earned by your Strata Plan’s insurance premium increasing by a rather nominal amount due to a claim being submitted and paid by your insurer.
You do realise that most insurance premiums are on the increase irrespective of whether claims have been lodged or not, I hope. If you are unaware of this fact, simply review your claims history in line with the documented premium increases for your Strata Plan’s policy for an idea.
Anyway, this particular case reeks distinctly of laziness rather than anything more sinister lurking in the bushes. I suggest your OC reviews its options with respect to obtaining new management, perhaps a company slightly more proactive and willing to take an extra step for the OC.
Looking at the broader picture related to this whole insurance debacle, I am not sure where the Strata Managers became the big bad wolf in all of this. The insurers have elected to use Strata Management companies to complete work that they would otherwise be paying their own staff to undertake.
I wish you all copious amounts of luck in actually achieving a decrease in your Strata Plan’s insurance premium if Strata Management commissions are banned. It simply won’t happen. The money that is paid to strata managers will be directed elsewhere – unless of course the collective ‘you’ believe that the insurers will suddenly find a cheaper labour force to complete their work for them and thus pass on these enormous savings to their customers. I mean, it’s not like insurers desire to make money out of this business. Right? Hmm.
I suggest these efforts be directed elsewhere, at the actual problem. I hazard a guess that the problem is a lack of education, of understanding, and entirely of the ignorance-of-many (despite the best of intentions) gaining momentum.
I watch on with bated breath.
Hi everyone,
Long-time lurker, first time poster!
I really felt like I had to respond to your post, Jess. I recently downsized from a house to a unit. I decided it would be the best way to enjoy a fuss free living environment, without the hassle and worry associated with maintenance of a house and large yard.
For me, I had never lived in a unit complex, and wasn’t entirely sure what to expect but bit the bullet and went ahead. I had all the necessary checks completed as far as a strata report goes, to confirm that the management of the place was in check, which it seemed to be.
However, what the strata report didn’t prepare me for, was the shock of moving from my own house, being king of the castle, to a very spatially-shared environment. Things like hearing my neighbours move about their unit, or performing day to day duties like cleaning and watching tv or listening to music. To things as mundane as awkward moments in the elevator with people who I assume are my neighbours – saying hello to people and not receiving a response. I’ve tried to get to know my neighbours, much like I did in my house, but I haven’t received positive responses! Some of the residents might be tenants and perhaps that’s affecting the way they interact with me, but I wouldn’t know for sure since conversation doesn’t ever occur.
I was also unprepared for the level of apparent ambivalence that some of my fellow owners have exhibited when it comes time for the AGM – I’ve tried to do my best to learn how things operate as far as decision making and financial arrangements go so that I can know where I stand and put my 2 cents in when I feel its needed, but some of the others really show no consideration for the rules. I’ve learned that, not being able to pick your neighbours is one thing (in terms of general living experiences like noise or rudeness) but not being able to pick the people who you make decisions with is a completely different game! I don’t feel like I’m on the same page with anyone else, and I was not prepared for that in the slightest, especially considering that decisions which I may not agree with in terms of being a good decisions for the long-term maintenance and management of the building, affect my personal finances now and most certainly will in the future.
I hope the above has provided some insight into what it’s been like for me, I’m sure this isn’t the everyone’s experience, but perhaps the others can comment???
Good luck with the purchase if you do go ahead!
Tazza