[Austman]

When people complain that an OC (or even other people) have treated them shabbily, I think they should consider how a similar situation would have been handled in the public arena:

What if your bike was tethered too close to a fire hydrant in the street?  Do you think the authorities would wait until you had been contacted before removing your bike?  Do you think you would escape a fine?  And if there actually had been a fire emergency and the bike’s position delayed the fire brigade by even a minute, do you think the affected people or the public in general would have been sympathetic towards you?  Ignorance is never an excuse.

I think you’re lucky not to be fined.  I think you should also apologise to the OC.

 

[Austman]

So your friend endangered the lives of all in the building and you expected to still get “real” notice even when you were away?

But they still gave your friend (and all in the building) notice to move the bike ” in the last few day of November”.

Think yourself lucky that it’s only the bike that is gone.

 

[Austman]

Our OC management has also told us that they cannot purchase goods or pay accounts with a credit card.  OC management companies (well ours at least) need to be invoiced and then issue a cheque.

So I suspect the OC manager cannot make on-line purchases if the on-line supplier requires a credit card (as most on-line suppliers do).

We get around this, by using an owner’s credit card and then forwarding the paid invoice to the OC manager.  The OC manager then sends a cheque to the owner (within days in our case).  If you have a 30 days interest free card, that can work.  But so far these have always been for fairly small purchases.

Perhaps 3 owners purchase one machine each?   And if that’s unacceptable you just have to pay more and have the OC invoiced.

 

[Austman]

Excellent result JimmyT.

Thanks for the help.

[Austman]

I thought I’d post a follow up.

The OC Committee commissioned an Acoustic Engineer to investigate the noise issue. The Acoustic Engineer deemed the noise to be “illegal” and that “an authority (e.g. health officer from the council) could order the OC to rectify the noise problem under the health act or noise regulations”.  The engineer recommended a change to a Carbon Monoxide Monitoring System (CMMS). All other advice to the Committee suggested that in a low use small residential car park (eg 14 spaces), the likelihood of ventilation fans being needed for a single car arrival or departure would be low.  When used with a Variable Speed Drive, even if the fans were needed, they could be slow started and initially run at lower (meaning quieter) speeds.

The change to a CMMS needed a building permit process.  That alone would normally mean a special resolution of the OC.   And as only one resident would benefit, the Committee thought that a special resolution would most likely fail.  But because the noise was deemed illegal, the Committee was advised that a special resolution of the OC in this case would not be required – OC’s must operate within the law.  So the Committee alone decided to install the CMMS at OC expense.

The cost was not quite as expensive as we thought: approximately $7,000 with around $2,000 of that being for all the process paperwork required.

The CMMS has solved the noise issue.  The fans rarely operate now and even when they do, they are initially slow started (over 20 seconds) to 40% speed. They are very much quieter at this speed.  But if needed they can still be operated at full speed.

It was interesting to see what the actual CO PPM (Carbon Monoxide Parts Per Million) levels in the car park were.  First, here’s what AS 1668.2 states:

Exposure Limit
AS1668.2 allows for:
Any arrangement that is demonstrated to limit the CO concentration, between 900 mm and 2500 mm above the floor, everywhere to –
(i) 60 ppm 1 h maximum average;
(ii) 100 ppm peak value; and
(iii) 30 ppm (Time Weighted Average) 8 h.

With no car activity the controller reads 0 PPM . An arriving car (warm engine) often doesn’t  increase the CO level at all.  Not even by 1 PPM.  But a departing car (cold engine) can cause a ‘cloud’ of CO which can sometimes exceed 30 PPM but quickly drops (in 25 seconds or so) to a steady 4 to 5 PPM once the ‘cloud’ disperses.  If there’s no further car activity, the CO level slowly returns to 0 PPM over the next hour or two.

The CMMS uses less electricity (due to less fan operation) but that saving is offset by increased maintenance costs (the CO sensor needs periodic calibration checks).

The bottom line: We have two very happy residents.

 

[Austman]

@Kangaroo said:
Austman,

I’m not familiar with Vic and ACT laws.

But if you look at NSW doors, the sliding pane is always on the inside of the centre line, and the fixed pane is always on the outside of the centre line.

That’s if you want to get that pedantic.

In my experience, sliding doors get misaligned (and fail to lock) for two reasons:

1) The rollers are worn (or flat) and should be replaced. Cost $100-$200.

2) The whole building has become infinitesimally trapezoidal due to subsidence. This might be fixable by adjustment of the roller height. Cost $100-$200.

Thanks Kangaroo. Pedantic is often exactly what strata law is!

I just took a look a my own sliding external door.  It’s a well known brand, sold all over Australia.  The sliding door part is on the outside.

As for where a boundary “centre-point” actually lies in structures like doors and windows, it’s clearly defined in VIC: Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements) Regulations 2011:

10 Use of buildings to define boundaries (c) Median (wall, window, door, balustrade):  lies along the mid point between exposed surfaces of any wall, window, door, and balustrade of the relevant part of a building.

So in VIC at least it’s the exposed surfaces that are the determining points, not any centre line.  So the boundary can vary even within a door or window structure!

Does anyone know if this is the same in the ACT?

[Austman]

It’s not just my interpretation, it’s the OC’s manager’s.   I tried to see how the act supported it.

The act seems pretty clear that  “external walls” are at least a 50/50 OC/owner responsibility but any wall is a 100% OC responsibility if load-bearing.  It doesn’t seem to matter what the “external walls” face on to.  The only other possible interpretation is that the wall between the unit’s interior and the external courtyard is an internal wall – I suppose that’s possible   As for “(b) the part of the wall outside the boundary is common property”.   I read “part of the wall” only is common property, where the boundary lies along the centre of the wall..  So the wall is partly common property but not the courtyard beyond.

Why would a boundary line be drawn on the Units Plan if it was absolutely meaningless to do so?  The unit’s interior and exterior could have been drawn as one area and I’d agree then that the sliding doors between them would be an owner responsibility if they were non load-bearing.   I own another apartment where it’s drawn this way.

And yes any wall, anywhere, if load-bearing is an OC responsibility.  And yes, I think that would include any door in an internal load-bearing wall.  And that’s the OC manager’s opinion too.  A door in a load-bearing wall needs to be specially constructed – or at least its frame does!

[Austman]

And now I have seen the actual Units Plan (sub-division plan) and there is a boundary line drawn between the unit’s interior and the unit’s exterior courtyard (called a unit subsidiary on the plan).

So this means the sliding doors to the courtyard are part of a boundary wall.  And as it’s an external wall of the building, the following applies (from Unit Title Act 2001):

If a class A unit or a unit subsidiary is bounded by an external wall of the building containing the units, then, unless otherwise indicated in the relevant unit title application or units plan—
(a) the boundary of the unit or unit subsidiary lies along the centre of the wall; and
(b) the part of the wall outside the boundary is common property.

So now the OC manager is telling me that the interior half of the sliding doors is an owner responsibility while the exterior half is an OC responsibility.   And, I guess, some repairs would be split 50/50. 

I never thought I’d champion Interior Face! (haha)  But it seems a lot simpler.

[Austman]

The rulings are from all over Australia.  Doors and windows are considered to be parts of a wall – parts of the wall construction.

The answer I suspect will be how the sub-division is drawn:  Is the wall which contains the door marked as a lot boundary? I  And if the wall which contains the door is load-bearing or not?

[Austman]

@kiwipaul said:

The Act doesn’t mention doors or windows as being defined parts and this omission implies that it could be owners responsibility if it is not considered part of the balcony.

 
 

Just to add that I’ve seen in various legal judgements and opinions that windows and doors are considered to be components of walls.  So a “wall” would include any door, window or other structure within the wall and their working parts. 

[Austman]

Thanks.  I’ve already quoted that part of the Unit Tiles Act to the OC manager.

The OC manager is pointing out the “if load-bearing” condition and has stated that the sliding doors would have to be load-bearing to be considered an OC responsibility.  I suspect they are not load-bearing although they do form a complete (glass) “wall” between the interior living room and the exterior courtyard (or balcony). 

Being an external window/door, I would have thought that alone would make it, at least partly, an OC responsibility. 

It might depend on how the boundary lines are drawn.  I note the advice below from VBCS (for Victoria, but the interpretation is the important part):

Q: Our balcony door is damaged and won’t close properly.

A: If the boundary of the lot extends past the wall to the edge of the balcony, the door will be within the owners lot and the responsibility of the owner to maintain.

I’ve not seen the boundary plan for the unit but on other plans that I have seen there’s usually a line drawn between a lot’s interior and exterior parts .  Even if that line exists, I understand that “Median” is the default boundary division in the ACT (and probably applies here as the unit was built in the 1980s).  So that would mean the OC and the owner are 50/50 responsible for lot perimeter walls, windows, doors unless if they are load-bearing?

Tricky!

[Austman]

Thanks for the response.

It’s a Class A unit.  It’s a repair/maintenance issue.  The external terrace/courtyard doors no longer close properly and can’t even be locked.  They seem to be out of alignment or maybe the rollers have worn out.  This is a ground floor unit and the doors open to a private walled terrace/courtyard area.  The unit above has a balcony instead and a similar sliding door arrangement to that balcony.

The OC manager has now told me maintenance of these doors is an owner responsibility because “The door is not typically considered to be a common area issue, they form part of the unit that the unit occupier has sole access to, therefore the doors would be considered to be the individual owners issue to repair.”

It seems the OC manager considers “sole access” to be a reason for the OC not to maintain them.   The balcony doors would be sole access too.

Is the OC manager correct?

[Austman]

Without more detailed information from the OP,  I’ll take a guess and say that the parking spaces are not being replaced by cages, rather that cages are being allowed to be installed in parts of existing parking spaces or beside them.    Eg over bonnet storage cages.

2.6m seems to be the allowed width even for free standing garages (with walls either side) these days.  So if a car space is 2.6m wide it should be enough. 

As for storage cages being a fire hazard, I very much doubt it.   Storage cages in car parks exist all over the country and have for as long as I can remember.  I’d like to see the law/rule that specifically states they are a fire hazard.

But an OC (at least in VIC) can make rules on how car spaces are used and could certainly prohibit storage cages – despite the fact that a car space is usually lot property.

[Austman]

In Victoria an owner, resident or not, can give a PO box number (or any address at all) as their mailing address.  

So in reality an OC can sometimes not be sure if a lot is owner occupied or let out.   This situation actually exists for one of the apartments in the building where I am on the Committee.   But the owner must, by law, must always be contactable (by a mailing address at least).

So my point was, can’t you serve the owner when an ‘occupant’ is to be served a notice?  In Victoria at least, it seems that sometimes you have no choice but to do exactly that if you have no idea who the ‘occupant’ actually is.  

Maybe you can do this in other states too?

[Austman]

The EC should be able to deal with the matter regardless.  For appearance and safety reasons and the fact that storage is a use of common property that should need approval.  The EC can have policies on the matter too. 

What we did: We told all owners and residents, both in writing and by a notice in the area, that the items would be removed and disposed of.  We gave a few weeks advance notice.  And then we paid for someone to do exactly that.  There were no complaints and even if there had been, we felt confident that we had given everyone ample time to remove their items before they were disposed of.

[Author]

Replies