Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It’s going to be an important issue.
But NBNCo has for a long time virtually ignored MDUs (multi-dwelling units).
There are some situations like new builds and high rises (with service accessible service ducting) where MDU connections to the NBN might be relatively straightforward.
But the question of how internal cabling can be done for the thousands of older mid-sized apartment buildings is not well addressed. This is because they are probably going to be too big for individual stand-alone NBN connections but also probably too small to have all the accessible service ducting infrastructure that large (eg high-rise) complexes might have.
It’s usually straight forward enough to get the NBN cable to the building itself. But getting the distribution to apartments from there is the problem, and why MDUs have basically, until now, been ignored by the NBN – put in the “too hard” basket. There is is still precious little information available on what internal MDU options are possible, or more importantly, allowed. The prospect of running new cables all over the common property is not exactly appealing to owners corporations but it’s even less appealing to be pulling off CP plaster, running cables and then replacing and repainting it all. A solution that allowed the existing building telephone cables (a bit like the Liberal’s suggestion) or the TV distribution system or some type of local wi-fi would be easier to install.
It’s a similar thing with the Optus/Foxtel cable. Unless an OC agrees to sometimes quite extensive internal cabling demands (the back-bone), the OC is forced to take a satellite solution – which also has cabling demands, but not as many so it sometimes it can even be integrated into existing cabling.
Still, it’s going to happen! But exactly how seems still to be a bit of a mystery.
The fire brigade did attend and charged $800+ and this is apparently going up to $1200+.If it is optical, can one or more detectors be changed to what? without all being changed?
In my building the same brand of smoke detectors are available in both optical and ionizing models. They are electrically and physically identical, so can be interchanged. It seems that optical ones are more likely to false alarm from steam and should not be located near bathrooms. Your installer should be able to advise further.
It does seem strange that the detectors inside each apartment sets off a Fire Brigade alarm. That’s going to be very expensive for the OC! False alarms happen quite a lot. Like JimmyT’s apartment, in our building the interior apartment smoke detectors are stand alone. The detectors in the common areas are linked to the Fire Indicator Panel and cause a full building alarm. But we have water sprinklers in every room and only a trigger of one of those will cause the Fire Brigade to be alerted
They must be optical smoke detectors because steam should not set off an ionization smoke detector.
But regardless, having a smoke detector alarm call the fire brigade? That seems wrong to me – false smoke detector alarms happen all the time. Are you sure the fire brigade is attending? In our system, only a water sprinkler trigger will bring the fire brigade.
Still, the false alarms would be very annoying. And it should not be that hard to relocate the detector or replace it with a different type.
In NSW, can’t owners choose the surface treatment of the lot interior side of common property walls? If you can paint, wallpaper and attach fittings etc to the wall, why can’t you tile it? If you can, then I suppose this issue is about the removal/replacement of the existing tiles, because they were an OC responsibility?
Wouldn’t permission from the OC before doing the tiling generally be enough? Where the OC could specify the quality of the work etc. I.e getting permission from the OC to repair/replace some common property. If the work was done to the standards specified by the OC, shouldn’t that be enough for the OC?
Since the work was been done without OC permission, wouldn’t inspection of the work or some documentation of the work quality be enough for the OC?
I hate to be pedantic. But it also depends on which state you are in and if the floor is actually Common Property.
On the floor: Most floors will be Common Property but not all. Example: I own a city apartment that is two storey. The “mezzanine” floor (which has rooms including a laundry and bathroom) is not Common Property on the Plan of Subdivision and is not structural to the building. So – it’s my responsibility to repair and maintain.
On the tiles: In some states (eg Victoria), tiles, including original tiles, are considered a surface treatment and are an owner responsibility. It’s different in NSW.
At least in Victoria a Committee can decide on getting legal ADVICE (by majority vote). But a Committee cannot decide on taking legal ACTION – that needs a Special Resolution of the OC. Individual members on the Committee cannot decide anything.
@Whale said:
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
To be clearer, in Victoria, an owner can’t just arrange new works within common property without OC permission. Owners have a responsibility to repair and maintain existing services when they exclusively service their lot – including where the service goes through any common property. And that’s the limit – repair and maintain the existing service – not modify or rearrange or alter common property.
To wrap all this up, in NSW if the taps are part of the water reticulation system that services only the Lot (and in a bathroom/kitchen that’s likely) and they’re currently and proposed to be within an internal as opposed to a perimeter (common) wall, then the Lot owner can have them relocated by a licensed plumber.
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
On the issue of the need for a Special By-Law (SBL) where works are proposed that change the common property, doesn’t a special resolution suffice in circumstances where the Owners Corporation is prepared to consider works of the same types individually as opposed to giving a blanket consent to those via a SBL?
Also, the rules on ownership, repair and maintenance of services vary from state to state.
In Victoria, services become an owner repair and maintenance responsibility from the point where they split to exclusively supply the owner’s lot. And that is regardless of if the service then goes through common property.
Not meaning to have a go at you.
But trying to say that getting these things fixed is often a lot more easily said than done. In my experience, it’s rarely simple.
For example building defects are not always the responsibility of the OC. It’s only when the building defect affects common property that the OC is fully responsible. Lawyers and OC management companies have told us this. So first up it might be wise for an OC to establish responsibilities – which are not always obvious. In one of the OCs where I am a member, there were water leaks. But these were partly coming from terraces/balconies that in Victoria can be an owner responsibility to repair and maintain (owners can be responsible for tiles and waterproof membranes in Victoria). The OC decided to get repairs done anyway (and always attended to acute issues) and were then threatened with legal action by non affected owners who didn’t want to contribute to the repairs.
But back to the original problem. Regardless of how the problem will be solved, acute problems like yours need immediate actions while the long term solution is found.
@JimmyT said:
I can tell you that it has been established in the Supreme Court here in NSW that pursuing developers for defects claims is not considered maintaining and reparing common property as required under strata law. In other words, the OC has to fix it regardless of what else is going on – they just need to make sure they follow correct procedures with assessments,quotes and contracts so that there can be no quibbles when they do make a claim.Nothing to do with following the law. Nothing to do with the developer (because it actually it has to be the builder in VIC). We understood all of that.
It’s the process of getting repairs done if some owners want to pursue the builder’s warranty insurance before paying lots of money themselves. And that’s a fair enough stance too – it is supposed to work that way – after all, the OC didn’t cause the building defects, the builder did!
And it’s what will work to fix the defect, how much will it cost?, when can it be done?, how do raise the funds? etc.
Ultimately it’s an OC process matter. It’s the OC trying to arrive at a correct decision. It’s the OC getting information from managers, lawyers, builders, experts. It’s the OC dealing with builders and tradesmen who don’t even bother to turn up half the time. And it’s the OC dealing with the complaints from non affected owners when they realise they’ll have to pay for repairs on issues that don’t directly affect them.
It’s not really that easy. It’s not really that simple. Especially for unpaid volunteers that have to do most of the work.
Get on the EC and help out if you really care!
Some more details are needed.
Is it just your apartment that’s affected? Is it a new apartment (meaning it’s still under builder’s warranty)?
If it’s just your apartment and the warranty has lapsed then I agree with kiwipaul.
But our OC has had similar problems where many apartments were affected and the building should have been under warranty.
It can be a complex matter to get genuine building defects fixed – it shouldn’t be, but it was for us. But your case sounds critical and the OC should at least try temporary remedies. Have they done that? We did just that but eventually had to pay to repair all the defects ourselves due to the useless building warranties in Victoria. We tried to do repairs as fast as possible – but it was very easy, especially for non-resident owners, to just demand things like “claim against the builder” or ‘take legal action” or “get more quotes” etc etc. It really took some time. Then of course we had to raise the funds …
I see the EC role as political. Which in many ways it is. EC members are elected and have quite large powers. In a way it’s the next level of politics: Federal, State, Local then OC.
Why would anyone go into politics? Certainly not for the money – of which there is none at OC level anyway. And just like all the other levels, those who go into politics can get abused. And of course they get demands and complaints to fix or change things. And in the end, they get very little or no thanks.
The reasons to go on the EC vary from person to person. For me it’s to try to improve the living experience of all residents. And that means trying to get things done and to make improvements that benefit the majority. And it’s about not being apathetic. If something matters, try to understand it and get involved.
It never ceases to amaze my how one issue can be of paramount importance to one resident(s) but of zero importance to another(s). Getting the 12 owners in the OC where I live to all agree on any matter is almost impossible – thank goodness for majority voting.
And the apathy in an OC can be amazing. One of the OCs where I’m a member has 200 lots. At the AGM last week only 6 owners turned up. Of those, the only non-resident owner was me. Yet the complaints from the non-attendees will freely flow through the next year.
But at the end of each year our building becomes a (sometimes only slightly) better place to live. That makes it all worthwhile.
I see now that the fitting is damaged? I understood that broken meant – not working.
You don’t say which state you are in. But in VIC owners must also maintain the “appearance or outward state” of the lot. And owners must maintain services that exclusively service their lot. All this might seem a bit silly at times, but if it’s your light fitting, you are requited to maintain it. The OC can always decide to fix or maintain these things if they choose to – but it’s not compulsory. It might be wise to get OC permission before removing the fitting.
In other states the rules might vary.
There are other lots with the light the same as yours? Why not ask them what they do in the same circumstatnces?
But if the switch is inside your apartment then it’s probably your power that’s being used and therefore it’s your light and a service that you exclusively control.
In VIC at least, a lot owner must “maintain any service that serves that lot exclusively ” regardless if parts of the service go though or are on common property.
Get long life bulbs fitted (perhaps LEDs) and hopefully not have the problem again for a long time.