Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If anyone is interested, by total co-incidence after I posted above, VCAT today published a case (after the applicant requested written reasons) about rule 3.2 Vehicles and parking on common property where a parked vehicle on common property was causing access problems for another resident:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/1103.html
In the above case it was one resident v another resident.
Out if interest, here is the Victorian model rule (by-law) on car parking. Most stratas in Victoria would have this rule:
3.2 Vehicles and parking on common property
An owner or occupier of a lot must not, unless in the case of an emergency, park or leave a motor vehicle or other vehicle or permit a motor vehicle or other vehicle—
(a) to be parked or left in parking spaces situated on common property and allocated for other lots; or
(b) on the common property so as to obstruct a driveway, pathway, entrance or exit to a lot; or
(c) in any place other than a parking area situated on common property specified for that purpose by the owners corporation.So, in Victoria at least, most OCs can’t even give permission to park on common property (outside parking areas) without first changing their rules. Changing rules in Victoria is easier said than done – try getting the required special resolution passed in larger stratas!
OC’s could create a parking area on common property but I doubt they could allocate that area to specific lots only without some form of exclusive use arrangement. Or look forward to disputes from other owners/residents.
I agree that it can be done, just like others have said. And it’s probably easier to do it in NSW where special resolutions are achievable. It’s the implementation and ongoing regulation of it that might be tricky. One problem is that residents when they see others parking on common property will simply continue do it themselves. So the OC can look forward to ongoing disputes with them. Not fun for the committee.
Perhaps some signage might work? Perhaps opening up an area that’s available for all residents would work – but it would be a like creating new visitor parking. The Australian parking standard (AS2890.1) has a lot of rules about access widths and clearances that also should be met. It would have to be carefully thought through.
Parking is one of the major problem areas in strata schemes. Residents get very upset with it. I’ve been on the receiving end of that more times than I care to remember.
I hope the OP lets us know what happens!
I did use the word “usually”.
But OCs/BCs must be fair. That’s mentioned regularly in tribunal cases.
As an OC chair, I’ve had to deal with these situations in my OCs many times over the decades. And the instant we tell a resident not to do something (like park in the wrong place or store junk in the open car park) they always look to other examples of residents doing the same thing to justify their behaviour.
So expect some issues in these areas if rules aren’t evenly applied. Not just now but also in the future when new residents move in and assume they can do as they see others doing.
I agree it might not be impossible to do but it’s a lot easier to administrate and enforce if all residents are required to do the same thing. It makes it a lot easier for the committee too. And in my experience, it has a better chance of working.
But I agree it can be done! For things like pram and bicycle parking on common property, which in my OCs have limited space availability – it’s been granted to residents on a first come basis.
@beaglegirl said:
We’ve pointed out that they are in breach of strata bylaws but they don’t seem to care. I suspect they’ll change their tune when they start getting fined, but the issue is that we don’t want to cause problems for the other residents whose parking isn’t causing an issue.I know we need to talk to our strata manager, but what is the likelihood of them taking action against one resident but not another? So fed up with this issue but don’t want to cause fights with the neighbours that we get along with.
I *think* I understand your issue: Some of the illegal parking is OK but some of it isn’t?
It can be a tricky situation because OC/BCs must treat all residents fairly which usually means equally. So it becomes an “all or none” situation.
Nothing else will work in my experience or the OC/BC will be seen to be unfair.
So even those currently not causing an issue would have to abide by the by-laws. Remember that residents and/or their cars will change in the future so the current neighbours that are not causing an issue could be one later on.
As an observation only, it looks to me like they are trying to move maintenance responsibilities to how they apply in Victoria.
In Victoria, owners would usually be responsible for all of the items mentioned. And if the maintenance of the item affected common property, the owner would have to repair the common property.
It seems to work in Victoria, but it’s a different state, a different OC Act.
@Sir Humphrey said:
A space can be narrower where it is presumed that a car’s bonnet would be than in the middle of the sides where it is presumed the doors will be. So, it might be OK to place an obstacle against the boundary if it is only in the bonnet region. The standard, which I don’t have here, I am relying on memory, has a complex diagram of what can be where along the sides of a space. This is to accommodate posts and columns that might support roofing, bollards and the like.
It’s AS2890.1.
For parallel parking, at the far (closed) end of the parking space, columns, walls and “other obstructions” may encroach on each side of the parking space as follows:
They may encroach up to 200mm on each side, for the last 1.2m to the far (closed) end of the parking space. This increases to 250mm on each side for the last 300mm to the far (closed) end of the parking space.
It would mean that over bonnet storage systems would most probably not violate the AS, as far as restricting a neighbour’s parking space, even if their legs were on the dividing line, as long as they were standing within 1.2m from the far (closed) end of the parking space.
@Austman said:
If the tenant has contents insurance – that type of insurance usually has a liability cover which should cover the tenant in such circumstances.
It’s a reason why it can be wise for tenants to have contents insurance.
I’ve checked some of my contents policies. While liability for accidental damage to property (eg OC/BC common property) is covered, accidents when using a vehicle are not.
So a car driving tenant needs both car insurance and contents insurance to be covered.
All the lot owners are covered by the OC/BC’s building insurance, so an insurance company cannot recover their costs from them (as they are the policy holders).
But that’s not the situation for tenants. An insurance company can choose to try to recover their costs from a tenant and AFAIK that is outside any OC/BC law. It’s completely up to the insurance company.
If the tenant has contents insurance – that type of insurance usually has a liability cover which should cover the tenant in such circumstances.
It’s a reason why it can be wise for tenants to have contents insurance.
@peaceandquiet said:
I’m a new member living in Victoria in a semi-detached place.I was wondering if moving into a strata place with a strict body corp might protect us from noisy / malicious neighbours?
Strata laws and rules can go further than the epa legislation.
The Owners Corporation Act (VIC) Model Rules state:
- An owner or occupier of a lot, or a guest of an owner or occupier, must not unreasonably create any noise likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of any other person entitled to use the common property.
- An owner or occupier of a lot must take all reasonable steps to ensure that guests of the owner or occupier do not behave in a manner likely to unreasonably interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of any other person entitled to use the common property.
Although a “strict” OC might be active in enforcing the OC Act and OC rules, any resident can independently start a three step process to resolve noise issues that can eventually see the matter taken to VCAT:
Three-step process for complaints
In my experience as an OC chair, noise matters have not gone past the internal dispute resolution step which includes a grievance meeting. First we have issued breach notices. But when they have been ignored, formally bringing the parties together in a grievance meeting has been reasonably successful.
@Lady Penelope said:
I agree with Scotlandx’s well made points about Workcover and employees. To add further to Scotlandx’s comments, it is not only employees that an OC should be concerned about.We can’t forget that the OC owes a duty of care to all occupants and visitors to ensure their safety both on, and regarding, the common property.
I posted my comments before Scotlandx’s were made visible. But we seem to be on the same track about the WHS laws. Generally a residential OC/BC is exempt.
If an OC’s building complies with the NCC/BCA at the time it was built plus any subsequent legislative requirements (retrospective requirements are quite rare), it’s extremely unlikely it could be found in breach of a “duty of care”. Maintenance is really the key. And that maintenance includes any required routine building safety inspections. In my OCs that’s the second biggest annual expense.
There seems to be a mix-up here between WHS (Workplace Health and Safety laws) and building regulations and standards set by the NCC (National Construction Code, formerly the Building Code of Australia).
Unless legislation requires it, existing buildings do not have to be compliant with the latest NCC standards. They only need to be complaint with the standards that existed at the time they were built. Some areas like fire and window safety have been legislated, so buildings must be compliant in those areas according to the law.
WHS is a different matter.
All states and territories, except Victoria and WA, have adopted the Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act in their State Acts.
So both in the Commonwealth and NSW WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATION 2011 – REG 7 it states:
7 Meaning of “person conducting a business or undertaking”-persons excluded
(1) For the purposes of section 5 (6) of the Act, a strata title body corporate that is responsible for any common areas used only for residential purposes may be taken not to be a person conducting a business or undertaking in relation to those premises.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply if the strata title body corporate engages any worker as an employee.
Very few OC/BCs have actual employees so they are usually exempt from their WHS Acts. Cleaners, gardeners, tradespeople etc that do paid work for an OC/BC are usually not considered to be employees.
Even in Victoria, which hasn’t adopted the Commonwealth Act, a residential strata that does not engage a worker as an employee is exempt. This information was given to me directly from Worksafe Victoria.
@JimmyT said:
@dwmyhome said:
Question. Once the damage is fixed who’s responsibility is to paint the ceilings and internal walls to restore them to the original condition.This is an interesting one and it is an ssue I have had a lot of arguments over the years with the powers that be:
Basically, if the ceiling and paintwork are damaged during the fixing of the problem then the Owners Corp has to pay for the repair and repaint.
It sure is a vexing issue.
I’ve recently had a fair bit of correspondence directly with CHU over a claim:
A water pipe burst inside a solid wall and floor slab. To get to the pipe, both the wall and the floor slab had to be partly excavated. To get to the floor slab, the plumber had to remove a skirting board and partly cut away a small section of a floating floor (they don’t always just lift!). Floating floors are of course lot property.
CHU covered the excavation cost and wall and slab repairs on the OC’s building insurance. They would not cover the floating floor or skirting board repair even though they were only damaged (but cutting) to get access to the burst pipe.
The OC would not have been liable for the burst pipe, so CHU argued, over several emails, that they were not liable for any damage caused to lot property even if caused by the repair process. As a floating floor was not a lot fixture or fitting, its repair costs could be claimed on lot contents insurance.
To note that if damage was caused by an insurable event, it’s likely that building insurance would cover it. That usually includes damage caused by residents. Of course, an excess will apply. An OC/BC must have building insurance for common property. That insurance usually extends to cover lot fixtures and fittings.
But if the damage was due to a lack of maintenance or is actually a building defect/failure, it’s unlikely to be covered.
Best way to keep residents informed?
From over a decade’s experience, I can say a password protected site is NOT the way to go.
You will miss a lot of residents and others (eg tenants and agents) if you do that.
If you want to genuinely keep all residents informed, you need an open site – and it’s better if they can subscribe to it for updates. Then display the site address (URL) in a prominent place inside the building(s). Typically in a noticeboard like location.
This is not for meeting minutes or things like dispute handling. It’s to let all residents know all about the building as well as how to contact the OC/BC. It can also contain by-laws/rules and decisions of the OC/BC. If the site is kept factual, it in itself doesn’t generate controversy.
It’s been a big success in my OC/BCs.
No by-law/rule is needed to create such as site AFAIK.
I don’t think the OP mentioned a security bond.
In my stratas, the costs charged have been the actual costs involved in arranging for a meeting and for the registering any by-law/rule.
I’ve had several quotes for both jobs and $600 is lucky to cover them. If more complex legal advice is needed, the cost has been higher.
I agree of course that the costs have to be actual and necessary. But when they are, why should other owners pay?