Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We have recently installed smoke detectors and emergency lighting – does this forfeit the need to keep the hallway clear?
The short answer is no. We have these things too but “Paths of travel to exits” is still a requirement on our Occupancy Permit. That is according to BCA Section D.
We intoduced the following policy:
Building lobbies and stairwells cannot be used for bike parking due to various reasons including:
1. They are designated emergency exit paths and cannot be obstructed.
2. They are the entrances to homes and should not be cluttered or look untidy.
3. They are not designed to be bike parking areas.
4. Bikes can damage paintwork on walls.scotlandx’s reply might be OK for NSW.But what about other states (eg VIC) where there is no requirement to give the names of tenants to the OC.There same situation must occur. What happens then? Are the tenant names actually needed before notices or orders can be issued? I suspect it’s the owner who then gets the notice or orders.Just to add that the various Surveillance Devices Acts in the states can prohibit observation of “private activity” without the observed party’s consent.
But “private activity” is not:
- an activity carried on “outside a building”; or
- an activity carried on in any circumstances in which the parties to it “ought reasonably to expect” that it may be observed by someone else.
So activity on a balcony or on common property areas that can be easily observed by others, is not “private activity”.
Ridiculous!
That would make all OC CCTVs on common property illegal!
In Australia, generally, you can take photos of anyone or anything from public property areas (even if those people/things are on private property). This is how a lot of the media get “private” photos today. It’s only when you are on private property that taking photos restrictions can apply.
And for OCs it’s similar – so unless the OC passed a specific rule to prohibit it on common property, it’s fine.
It’s certainly possible to do. I think you should consult a strata lawyer. At the very least the Plan of Subdivision will need amending. Possibly units of entitlement and liability as well. And you probably need a unanimous resolution of the OC. Then there will be the other matters of swimming pool construction (if 2 were to be replaced by 1) which might involve common property, council approvals etc etc.
Strata lawyer.
@Kangaroo said:
But I don’t like the key cabinet idea.
If you have a control-freak, they will simply change the combination so that only they have access.
What are people’s opinions on whether all owners have a right to access the meter room whenever they like (to read their own meter in this era of rising electricity prices), or whether they should have to wake up an EC member to accompany them to do so, or whether they have no rights at all?
I suppose a control freak could do that. It hasn’t happened in our OC. It’s about giving practical access with reasonable security. We use 2 key safes. One is in our Fire Indicator Panel room which contains keys needed to reset any false alarms. A fire alarm causes deafening bells over all the common areas. It’s kind of important to have access to this key at 5am when someone burnt some toast!
As for accessing common areas like meter cupboards/rooms, again it’s about practical access with reasonable security. Although all residents might have a right to enjoy common property, the OC has a right to provide security and safety which can include restricting access to certain areas. (Vic OC act 2006).
Everyone on the EC should have access to keys for common areas.
But there’s no need for more keys.
Our OC’s solution: We have a combination lock, key safe somewhere on the accessible common property that holds common property keys. All the EC and the manager know the combination lock’s code.
Simple.
And in emergencies keys can be found even if a call to a EC member is needed to find out the code.
@kiwipaul said:
If it was common property I would agree that in NSW it is Strata reasponsibility to cover the excess but it is not common property the fixture belongs to the lot and so it is the owners problem to pick up the excess.
It’s about liability.
If the OC is liable for the damage then the OC has to repair it and pay any excess. If the OC is not liable (eg the damage was due to an Act of God) then the owner should pay any OC insurance excess. Remember, an owner’s lot insurance is (1) optional and (2) might not even cover the damage.
It might be a bit of work for an owner to claim against the OC, but that’s up to the owner.
In my OC, we have handled similar situations like this:
- If the damage to a lot’s property was caused by a fault in common property, the OC is responsible for the damage and any subsequent repair. How the OC arranges the repair of the lot property is up to the OC. It might be an insurance claim, it might be a claim against the builder, the OC might pay out of common funds, but the OC is still responsible. If it’s an insurance claim, the OC claims either for damage under building cover (even for fixtures that belong to the lot owner) or against the liability cover due to damage to other’s property (eg when it’s not the building or a fixture that was damaged). As the OC is responsible for the damage, the OC pays any excess.
- If the damage to a lot’s property was not caused by a fault in common property, the OC is not responsible for the damage but will assist if the OC’s insurance will cover the damage. As the OC was not responsible for the damage, the lot owner pays any excess.
In Victoria, waterproofing, even of external areas (like balconies), can be an owner responsibility. It all depends on exactly what is causing the leak – and where. Has the exact source of the leak been determined? If not, the OC should be at least establishing that.
“Poor housekeeping” – what does that mean? That gutters are not being cleared? That’s probably an OC issue too if the gutters are Common Property.
What ‘work’ are you proposing to get done? If it turns out to be a building defect, the cost of repairing the defect will not be covered by the OC’s insurance, but the cost of repairing any consequential damage due to the defect should be.
I don’t know why an insurance claim should cost anything to make. It’s either knocked back or accepted with a possible excess to pay.
In my OC (I’m on the committee) we’ve had similar issues. An Acoustic Engineer has recommend fitting external door seals such as Raven seal RP94Si. This seal should be fitted to the top and sides of the outside (the lobby side) of the apartment entrance door. Door bottoms can also be fitted with a drop seal such as Raven RP 99si.
The seal would mean that the inward opening doors close a bit like how a refrigerator door closes. One owner has already fitted such a seal (without OC permission) and reports that it made a big improvement.
We are in the process of getting the seals fitted (at OC expense) to all the other apartment entrance doors.
ust to add that it can also depend on where you live.
In Victoria (and it seems in the ACT?) a service (eg water) becomes an owner responsibility from where it branches to serve just the owner’s lot. And this is regardless of whether it goes through common property or not.
It can be complex at times.
Unless it’s obviously the owner’s responsibility, our OC would initiate an investigation or repair and then charge, or partly charge, the owner (or attempt to) if it ends up being an owner responsibility.
I don’t think it is an OC responsibility. There is no requirement for a building to be kept up to date with the BCA. So that reasoning is wrong.
But an OC can, of course, decide to do it anyway.
In Victoria, an OC can fund improvements (not repairs/maintenance) to Common Property from the owners that benefit. That seems the fair approach to me. We have a similar situation re the top floor in our building (that meets the BCA 1996) and it is the approach we took. We’ll allow owners to install the insulation above their apartments, but because they are in reality the only beneficiary, they have to pay for it.
On every levy notice, all owners in arrears should be listed with the amount owing. That’s the way to do it.
There are no Privacy Act breeched. Every owner has a right to know.
The Privacy Act is often used as an excuse for not disclosing information to concerned parties. Often incorrectly. I was once refused the contact details of my tenant by my managing agent who stated that the Privacy Act prevented her from giving them to me!
For range hoods, my understanding of even the current building code is:
- They are not compulsory.
- They can be recirculating (use of a carbon filter is then recommended).
- If ducted externally, the duct cannot be shared with bathrooms/laundry/powder room ducts.