Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I don’t think age has anything to do with who the troublemakers in a strata complex are. Our present troublemakers are in their 20s, 40s, 60s and 80s. I think IQ is a better measure than age, and let’s face it, there are idiots in every age group.
I am beyond furious that this has happened. We voted unanimously for the “no pets” bylaw earlier this year, after years of problems caused by dogs. I’m disgusted that this was now a waste of time and money.
My definition of “<b>harsh, unreasonable, oppressive</b>” is being forced to live next door to a barking dog. It is life destroying! I know, I’ve been there.
And having the bylaw where they have to ask for permission is useless. They get a unanimous ‘no’ vote, then they go to NCAT who allows them to have the dog. The health and right of non-dog owners to live peacefully is completely ignored.
Firstly Jimmy, I’m horrified at the thought that their could end up being a block of units with 200 dogs, even when 100 other owners don’t want them.
Secondly, in my experience, it’s the owners that don’t live in the unit block that vote in favour of dogs, because they think it will make it easier for them to get a tenant (although the opposite is often the case). I know all votes are equal, but I don’t believe that owners who don’t live in a block have the right to inflict dogs on the owners who do live in the block.
Cosimo “I have had pets do a lot of damage to strata property or more than the bond.”
You are correct Cosmo. Don’t even start me on the damage. I have an investment property and my tenant moved in a dog without my knowledge or permission and against the bylaws. I only found out when other residents complained about it. He moved out when he was told he had to get rid of the dog. The place stunk, the carpets were stained and had to be replaced, and the underlay was covered in watermarks and mould from the dog urinating inside. The courtyard was covered in dog poop which I had to pick up. Paintwork and drapes were also damaged by the dog. It cost me $11,000 to fix the damage and the bond didn’t go anywhere near close to covering it. I also lost a couple of months rent while getting the unit ready for a new tenant.
There are also medical reasons for not allowing dogs in strata. Years ago I got a job in the west of NSW where I rented a strata property that went with the job. The previous tenant had kept a dog in the unit. Dog hairs were stuck everywhere to the carpet and two industrial cleans didn’t get rid of them. Not only was I constantly having to brush dog hairs off my clothes, but they gave me asthma to the extent that I had to move out and give up the job.
I have had very bad experiences with dogs as a tenant, an owner occupier and a landlord and am very strongly against them being allowed in strata complexes.
This makes me really angry. Before our strata introduced a pet ban living here was impossible. Dog owners went to work leaving their barking mongrels to destroy everyone else’s life for hours and hours day after day. My mental health was severely impacted. People might have the right to own a dog, but they don’t have the right to impose that dog on other people’s lives.
It’s really simple. If you want to own a dog, don’t move into a complex that bans pets and then think it’s your right to challenge the bylaw. Dog haters have rights too, and they have the right to protect their own mental health. In my opinion the sound of a dog barking is the most annoying, horrible, soul destroying sound in the world and it drives me absolutely insane. There is nothing I wouldn’t do to keep our complex pet free.
So, if you live in a strata complex that isn’t an apartment block, i.e townhouses and villas, do you need a special resolution or an ordinary vote to get permission to install solar panels? (My neighbour and I, in adjoining townhouses would like to install solar panels on a section of our roofs that would not be visible from the common property, the street or the windows of any other property in our complex.)
@JimmyT said:
@AJP said:
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.You are making the assumption that you will be there every minute of every day when there is even the remotest chance that may be a child in your home. The law, quite rightly, does not allow you to make that assumption. Your argument is very similar to the anti-pool safety argument … and yet dozens of children used to die in “safe” swimming pool areas.
As I live by myself and no one else has a key to my home, I can make the assumption there isn’t the remotest chance of a child being in my home when I’m not there, which is different to a pool because children can wander into backyards when the owner isn’t there.
If this law was really about child safety it would target the homes where children live rather than where they don’t, it would allow windows to be locked closed rather than locked open where locks already exist, it would allow a piece of dowl to be placed in sliding windows instead of insisting on locks, and it would take account of fire safety rather than expecting people to be fiddling around with keys and locks in the dark and smoke while their house is burning.
If our SM was serious about enforcing the law he would let us install the $5 locks at a total cost of $100 instead of over $1,500. (I reckon he’s getting a commission.)
Someone is making a lot of money out of this ineffective law. My mother lives in an over 55s complex of 4 single storey villas where all the windows go from the ceiling to the ground, (i.e they have a fall of 5cms) but they have to pay $220 for someone to sign a piece of paper to say they don’t need locks. Seriously!
The mixed responses to my above question prove the law is ambiguous.
I am strongly against putting a second lot of locks on my sliding windows which already have locks. (There is no law which says you must open your windows.)
Firstly, I would have to replace all my window furnishings. Not only would it be impossible to operate vertical drapes with the window locks my SM wants, it would also be impossible for me to get any air into the rooms, because I have fixed material drapes down each side of my windows which are wider than 12.5cms. (I have shown my SM the $5 locks available from Bunnings, as mentioned above, and he reckons they don’t comply.) I have my windows fully open in Summer and want to continue to do so. It would be much cheaper for me to pay the fine than replace all my window furnishings.
Secondly, is the matter of fire danger as mentioned by Winston above. I could easily climb out of my second storey bedroom window and exit via a tree in the case of a fire, but not if the window opening was limited.
Thirdly, I have my ensuite window fully open all the time to prevent mould. I’m not prepared to limit the opening.
Fourthly, there are NO children in my townhouse. When there were, years ago, I was more than capable of making sure they didn’t fall out a window.
This law discriminates against strata dwellers. It implies we are incapable of supervising children, as opposed to home owners who don’t have to install window limiters. There are far more children living in two storey houses than there are in townhouses. I can’t find one example on the net of a child falling from a suburban townhouse.
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.
@kiwipaul said:
I read this as the lock must allow a max of 12.5cm opening but if the opening is 0cm it still complies so no I don’t believe you need do anymore. You also have until 2018 before this becomes mandatory anyway.
That is my interpretation also, but our strata manager says I’m wrong. He is also putting a lot of pressure on us to do it now, because “it will be more expensive in 2018”. He got quotes and sent them out to be voted on even though we told him not to. I don’t know why he is so desperate for us to have them installed.
The two storey townhouses are outnumbered by single storey villas in the complex and they could vote it in next time he brings it up because it doesn’t effect them. I really do not want another lock on my windows, especially the one the SM is pushing for, as my vertical drapes wouldn’t sit flat and would catch on it when they are opened and closed.
I live in a complex with four two storey town houses. All our windows have window locks so they can be secured in the fully closed position. Are we also required to install window opening limiters, so windows can be locked at 12.5cms?
Our strata manager says that we do and obtained a quote for $1580.17 which we voted against. None of us have young children either in residence or as visitors and view this as an unnecessary expense when we have existing locks. The legislation talks about maximum opening, but doesn’t mention minimum opening (closed) so it is not clear whether our locks comply, although we believe they should.
Our sinking fund money is invested and earned $861 in interest in the last financial year. We paid $324 in income tax and our strata management charged $165 to do the tax return. So we came out ahead, even if not by much. It’s still worth us investing.