Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I don’t know why you might have to wait up to a year.
But on the costs. Many of my stratas, that I either chair or have been on the committee, will try to recover their actual administration costs for handling any renovation requests from owners. And fair enough too IMO.
Those costs might include the SM’s costs for arranging a meeting to approve the request (if the owner doesn’t want to wait until the next GM). They might include some legal costs: eg that might include the drafting and registering of a by-law or a rule to cover future maintenance costs. And perhaps the wording of the motion on which to vote and/or advice on what level of vote is needed (eg Special or Ordinary) to carry that motion.
$1,000 does seem a lot. But IME the costs when actually doing it have been at least $600 but sometimes more if the renovation was more complex/major.
Of course, if the committee alone has the authority to approve the works, there might be no cost at all. But by the sound of it, I doubt that’s the case for the renovations here.
Here is a link to the 2016 Victorian Building Authority’s reports on the situation in Melbourne:
https://www.vba.vic.gov.au/a-z-information/audit-of-cladding-on-high-rise-buildings
The VBA audited 170 high rise residential and public buildings in central Melbourne and surrounds.
From the VBA report:
- The rate of non-compliance was 51%.
- It is important to note that “non-compliant” does not necessarily mean the building is unsafe to occupy. A number of safety features in buildings protect occupants from fire. If a building has external wall cladding that does not comply with the BCA, it may still be considered safe to occupy because of the presence of these other safety features, which may include automatic fire sprinkler systems and construction of internal walls to prevent the spread of fire and smoke within the building.
- In addition to the Lacrosse building, only one other building required an immediate emergency order to be issued by the MBS.
Melbourne’s Lord Mayor was on TV tonight about the issue.
It’s not all sleeping dogs in Melbourne although all the details are yet to be known:
To note to the OP that parallel parking spaces have the typical 2.4m spacing requirement (less if 30 degrees angle parking) to allow for doors to swing open partly over the adjoining space. And there are strict requirements about objects not blocking those door swing areas.
Not so for storage space areas.
So you could “store” eg a 1.5m high barrier or other tall objects right along your marked border line.
That might not make your neighbour too happy. And it might not help you either! But it might be a point for negotiation if the neighbour insists on the “it’s not a car space” argument.
@BONNIE L said:
Does anyone have experience of a strata insurance firm acting like the Police with regular checks made to strata manager on what I regard as non-urgent maintenance matters in a building?I have. Well not “regular” checks – but checks none the less – possibly random ones.
In one of my stratas – this time in NSW – where I was the chairperson, we had our insurance company write to us, out of the blue, over a matter that concerned them.
They were concerned about a possible structural defect in the building and wanted a structural engineer’s report about the matter.
We got a structural engineer’s report (which stated there was no structural problem) and sent it to the insurance company and it was all was OK after that.
@chai said:
A recent VCAT ruling Owners Corporation No 3 PS419703E v Bell (Owners Corporations) [2017] VCAT 494 (10 April 2017) may be read to allow the painting of the interior of a lot, especially if it is not easily visible by the public.But if the lot were easily viewed, I think VCAT would have supported the OC application:
23. I find that the silver panel on the glass wall is visible from outside the lot and is technically a breach of special rule 9(a)(2).
The OC’s poor behaviour was also taken into account (under s.167) in the ruling.
There is another recent VCAT case where this matter was considered (by the same VCAT member):
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2017/470.html
19. In my view, the external appearance power gives the owners corporation a power to make rules with respect to the aesthetic look of the lot, including but not limited to, colour and conformity of appearance to other lots and common property. The power does not extend to what can be built, or how it must be built, but is confined to regulating the appearance of what is built or to be built.
I’d say that would apply to a common car park area.
@Sir Humphrey said:
perhaps the EC could just decide as Austman suggests but the committee could choose to also propose an ordinary resolution at a general meeting along the lines that JT suggests about who can view the footageYes, that can work. A committee decision can’t override a full OC decision. And if done at the next AGM it shouldn’t even cost the OC anything in additional meeting expenses.
But, as I know from committee and chair experience in my OCs with CCTV systems, any resolution does need a bit of care in the wording to give it the flexibility that invariably will be needed – so it usually has to include letting the committee decide.
To note that in the OP’s Victoria a Special Resolution would probably not be needed to install a CCTV system. A committee decision alone would probably be enough.
In larger OCs in Victoria, Special Resolutions can be very difficult to achieve. A SR in Victoria, at the very minimum, needs at least need 50% of owners to actually vote – something which alone is almost mission impossible in larger OCs. They also must vote in favour.
The OC could consider making a rule (the Victoria equivalent of a by-law) about the access but creating a rule again needs a SR! In my experience it’s best left to the committee to decide the circumstances of giving access. That also provides for some flexibility.
In Victoria, the Surveillance Devices Act 1999 applies.
IMO, the main parts of that Act, applicable to an OC are s.6 and s.7:
6 Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of listening devices
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the conversation.7 Regulation of installation, use and maintenance of optical surveillance devices
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device to record visually or observe a private activity to which the person is not a party, without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity.So basically the OC should not record private conversations or private activities without consent. Most CCTV installations don’t record sound so the issue is generally about vision only. As long as the cameras view public or common areas and do not view into areas where private activities could take place (eg into the private apartment areas) and if signs state that there are CCTV cameras in the area (which some say is the implied consent), there shouldn’t be any legal problems.
Access to the vision is up to the OC to decide. Eg the committee could do it on a case-by-case basis if that was their wish. Some OCs allow live footage of the street door and lobby areas – similar to intercoms. Some don’t.
AFAIK there’s no rules on how long the vision needs to be kept. Most CCTV systems can be set to automatically overwrite the oldest recording. It means that the size of the system’s hard disk determines how long the vision is stored.
I think you have to be a bit flexible and reasonable as well.
Understanding the likely chain of events can help:
1. The tenant reports a roof leak to their agent.
2. The agent sends a roof plumber to investigate.
3. The work is fairly minor, so the roof plumber fixes it on the spot and invoices the agent.
4. The agent then realises that the repair was actually an OC responsibility.So, lots of mistakes being made but in the end, the OC is responsible for repairs to common property.
Considering:
1. The repair costs, although perhaps not good value, were fairly minor.
2. Any plumber will charge a call-out fee.
3. The OC would probably have to pay any investigation fee once it was established that it was a common property issue.
4. Plumbers usually have no idea about what is common property.
5. Managing agents often have a poor knowledge about what is common property.I’d just pay the account. Most have acted in good faith at least.
And ask both the agent and the tenant to contact the OC next time, if that’s what you want. Realise that some strata managers will charge a service fee for handling such an enquiry – it depends on the contract.
The whole matter is probably not worth getting into a fight over.
@Sir Humphrey said:
If it was just an ordinary tree and there was no reason to suspect that it presented any more risk than any other ordinary tree, then I would suggest that the OC is not liable if someone parks under it. It’s just bad luck that a branch fell on the car. That a branch fell and did some damage is not the OC’s fault so liability insurance would not cover it.This is my understanding also. Unless it could be shown that the tree was in a dangerous or unhealthy state, falling branches and even falling trees due to a storm are classed as an “Act of God” or a “natural causes” type of event.
The tree owner would be unlikely to be liable.
Insurance cover in such cases usually becomes the responsibility of the owner of the damaged property. So each strata in this case should be covered by their own building insurance for any damage done to their own common property or to their own lot owners’ fixtures and fittings. Unfortunately a car is not common property or a lot fixture or fitting.
chai said I feel that the word external to “external appearance of a Lot” has significance here. In my opinion, and without any legal experience or knowledge of any VCAT precedence, I don’t think the OC is able to demand the lot owner revert the painted interior of a lot to the original unfinished appearance.
I think I understand your dilemma: How can “external appearance” refer in fact to an “internal” area?
Under s.5.2 of Schedule 1 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 an OC can make rules about the “external appearance of lots”. IMO VCAT has also made it clear in published cases such as Owners Corporation PS508732B v Fisher that “external appearance” means the appearance of even the internal parts of a lot from outside the lot:
Owners Corporation PS508732B v Fisher
At 20:
Further, lot owners should have the ability to control the choice of tile within the lot (subject to any rule relating to the external appearance of the lot).
If you substitute the word “tile” with “paint”, you’d have your situation.
@chai said:Notwithstanding the pettiness of ruling that a resident cannot make the surface of their car lot easier to clean, by ensuring oil drips do not soak into the raw concrete floor, my question is whether the area inside the title boundary of a car park lot considered the exterior of a lot.
I chair an OC in Victoria and sit on another OC’s Committee. We have even sought legal advice on this type of issue. If the Plan of Subdivision states INTERIOR FACE: ALL BOUNDARIES, then without a specific notation stating otherwise, the car park airspace inside the lot boundary is interior lot property as is any paint on the floor or walls (as per inside a lot apartment). The same applies to floors and walls of lot terraces and balconies which, although actually external to the building, are interior from a title perspective.
IMO the OC Rule on external appearance will apply if the lot parking space floor can be viewed externally from outside the lot – which seems to be the case. The Rule is not part of the Victorian Model Rules. But you’ll note it only restricts lot owners or occupiers. It doesn’t restrict the OC itself from making an alteration which would presumably be at OC expense. From a practical point of view, it’s usually easier if the OC maintains car parking floors and walls. But it can ask that owners clean up oil spills etc.
An OC Committee cannot overturn a registered OC Rule in Victoria and neither can a general meeting of the OC without a Special Resolution. Special Resolutions in Victoria can be quite hard to get especially in larger stratas: they need at least 50% of the owners to actually vote (an almost impossible task in larger stratas) and to vote for the motion with no more than 25% voting against.
You could challenge the OC Rule at VCAT. Or perhaps just use a drip tray?
If your subdivision is strata there should be an OC.
So you may well have an OC, it’s just that in Victoria, for horizontal type stratas with no common property and with building insurance passed to lot owners, the OC can be effectively dormant if it chooses. For these types of OCs there are usually no regular cost issues.
If you’d like to find out if an OC exists, go to Landata:
https://www.landata.vic.gov.au/
Just typing in your address with give the information about if a Plan of Subdivision and an OC exist.
If there is an OC, get with other owners and have a meeting if you choose.
The OC Act still applies.
As this is Victoria, it should be noted that committees have considerably more power than some other states. If the works only affected common property in a minor way, the committee might have decided that a full OC vote was unnecessary.
I’m reading (because the OP was not informed of the works) that it was a committee only decision. If so, there should be a record of the decision in the committee minutes. In Victoria, it’s not compulsory to distribute those minutes to each owner, but they should be in the OC records.
If only one lot benefits from the system, that lot automatically must maintain it, regardless of its physical location on common or lot property. That’s part of the OC Act in Victoria.
If it was done by committee decision only, it was poor form of the committee IMO. While it’s quite common to allow lot equipment to be installed on common property, decisions should be fair to all owners.
What has been decided by committee only, can be altered by a future committee, or by the OC at a general meeting or of course by VCAT. So there are some possible options to investigate.