[Austman]

Our OC has been in a similar situation.  A failure of Common Property (leaks in the roof) led to interior lot water damage.  The OC’s insurnace (liability cover I think) covered the interior lot damage repair, minus the excess which the OC will pay.  The OC’s insurance did not cover the roof leaks repair which were deemed building defects.

[Austman]

Sorry, I was reading the situation the other way around.  That the OP was worried that the fixed lease could be terminated due to the property sale.  Most properties being sold with ‘Vacant Possession”.

I see now that the OP doesn’t like the future property inspections and would rather terminate the lease than deal with them.  But the OP should have some negotiation rights on the inspections:

 Sale of residential premises

(1)  A landlord must give the tenant written notice of the landlord’s intention to sell the residential premises not later than 14 days before the premises are first made available for inspection by prospective purchasers.

(2)  A landlord or the agent of the landlord for the sale of the residential premises must make all reasonable efforts to agree with the tenant as to the days and times when the residential premises are to be periodically available for inspection by prospective purchasers.

(3)  A tenant must not unreasonably refuse to agree to days and times when the residential premises are to be periodically available for inspection by prospective purchasers.

(4)  A tenant is not required to agree to the residential premises being available for inspection by prospective purchasers more than twice a week.

(5)  This section is a term of every residential tenancy agreement.

Apologies again  – and yes the OP can give 2 weeks notice without penalty.

[Austman]

In NSW, it is this link that counts:  https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/Tenants_and_home_owners/Ending_a_tenancy_information_for_landlords.pdf

 

And nothing there suggest that your lease can be ended before it expires.

[Austman]

We have the same issue in our OC of which I’m a member of the EC.

The Plan of Subdivision does not call our open plan car park a ‘car park’ as such – it’s just an area where there are parts of the lots.  Nor is it called a car park on the building plans – it’s simply a ‘basement’.  But clearly, it is a car park.   We have no special rules or by-laws re car parking – just the standard ones for Victoria.

We have the same issue with storage.  Some residents treat their car spaces as a junk yard.

It’s often mentioned that OCs could stop this ‘storage’ because it’s a potential fire hazard.  But is it really?  I see other car parks that have grill cages that get filled with ‘stuff’ that no-one seems to think is a fire hazard.

Could someone point out the rules/regulations of what actually is a fire hazard in a car parking area?  Cheers!

[Austman]

@Boronia said:
I was always under the impression that Telstra (or whoever provides the service) was responsible for the phone line up to the outlet in the wall, and even the phone itself if they supplied it.

 

Any “wires under the carpet” would be a subscriber’s addition and their responsibility.

Telstra owns the cable from the street to the Main Distribution Frame.  The OC owns the MDF.  All the cables from the the MDF to individual apartments are the OC’s or individual owner’s responsibility (it might vary from state to state).  In Victoria it would be the owner, even where the cable goes through Common Property because it’s after the MDF that the cable serves individual apartments.

[Austman]

Thanks Whale and while I support your opinion, I’m not sure that intended use would stand up to much legal scrutiny if we (the OC) were challenged on it.

What I think might  help is that bicycles are legally vehicles and so OC rules on vehicles and where they can be parked might apply to them?

But prams are perhaps another matter.

[Austman]

@scotlandx said:
Yes everyone has the right to use common property, but not to store personal items. If someone leaves a bike in the foyer, does that mean I can leave a piece of furniture, or a suitcase? If a scheme wants to allow it, fine, but you are likely to end up with a very messy property.

Totally agree.  And hence the problem.  At what point does parking a bike or pram become ‘storing‘ a bike or pram?

[Austman]

Well I am on the EC and as well as the bikes and child’s car seat under the stairwell, we’ve had one or two prams parked near one of the street entrance doors.  None of the above are blocking anything.   I’m thinking too we might look at wall or ceiling bike racks in the car park – but we really have almost no spare space there even to do that!

I’ve put it on the agenda for our next EC meeting but I’m really not sure too much can be done.  Everyone has a right to use the common property.  Is parking a bike or a pram on common property considered exclusive use? They are not locked or chained to anything.   I can’t see how they are a fire hazard in themselves unless they are blocking an exit path.  They might be considered an eyesore and clutter.  The bikes also might be leaving some marks on the wall, but the prams don’t.  There’s 20 steps to take the pram up the pram owner’s apartment – so I can see why they’d want to leave it near the street door.

If we ban the bikes (eg claiming that they damage common property), the owners might say ‘but you allow prams’.  If we ban the prams too we might look pretty mean, so we’d need to have good reasons.  And I’m not sure we (the EC) can just ban prams, if they are not blocking any path and are not damaging common property.  We (the OC) do have the right to make a rule “for the purpose of the control, management, administration, use or enjoyment of the common property or of a lot.”  But that needs a Special Resolution.

[Austman]

I really feel for you in this unfortunate situation.  The owner is very irresponsible.  But I wonder who is paying the rent?

I’ve found that if the EC makes the issue known to all other owners in the OC, it can get results.  But you need to be sure that the offending owner is aware that everyone in the OC is being informed of the situation and that if the matter goes to the CTTT all of their decisions are made public on the Australian Legal Information Institute’s database ( https://www.austlii.edu.au/form/search1.html?mask=au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT ). 

There are no privacy laws here – this is an OC matter and it is perfectly OK to inform the whole OC of the situation, of any EC correspondence on the matter and of any actions taken by the EC.

My experience is that owners, when genuinely in the wrong,  wake up and finally do something when they realise that all other members of the OC know about the situation. They also don’t want to risk having a very accessible public record of the situation on the Australian Legal Information Institute’s data base.

And if the owner still doesn’t  do anything then start the process that sees the matter go to the CTTT.

I’m sure others here will offer advice too.

[Austman]

What’s the views on our issue re bicycles on common property?

Our building (a converted warehouse) is 140 years old and has no garden or outdoor common property.   There is no room in our basement car park for a bike rack – most residents park their bikes in their car space (every apartment has at least 1 car space).  But in one entrance to the building there is an area under a stairwell that is starting to be used by some of the residents for bike parking.  First 1 bike, then 2 and yesterday there were 3.  And also a child’s car seat.   The bikes and car seat are not blocking anything – but they look a bit messy (but I suppose ‘messy’ is subjective – but one of the bikes is pretty shabby – with a flat tyre and all).  This is the main entrance area for 8 apartments.  The bikes are starting to damage the wall paint too – where they are leaned against the wall.  

We’d have room to install a small bike rack under these stairs – for perhaps 4 bikes.  First in gets to use it?   But should we do it?  It might just make an irritation worse – by encouraging more bike parking in this area  – meaning a more ‘messy’ appearance and wall damage.  I suppose we can ban it all together and say park your bikes in the car park and not in the stairwell.

Thoughts?

[Austman]

@deliria1 said:
….the terrace wall height was a special condition placed in our contract – we were so busy fighting them on a contract issue relating to our ceiling that we didn’t pick up on this until after settlement.

From an OC point of view, it’s what’s on the plans (that were approved by council) and not what’s on your contract.  Have you a copy of the plans where the height of the wall is shown?

[Austman]

It might depend on  where the OP lives, but Special Levies do not need a Special Resolution in Victoria if they raise less than double the annual budget.  I suspect other states could be similar  – in that there is a limit before a Special Levy needs a Special Resolution?

Jimmy, is it possible to make the Location field in user profiles compulsory?  At least then we’d have a better chance of knowing where the poster comes from and which state law applies.

Also, the committee has quite wide powers regarding the use of common property.  If you don’t like what the committee does then vote them out or arrange for an EM to be held – if you can get the numbers to do that – to overrule them.  If the OC buys a flag pole and erects it on common property the flag pole itself becomes common property and has to be repaired and maintained (or removed if it’s later voted to do that) by the OC into the future.

[Austman]

This seems to be different in Victoria where the OC Act states:

129 Care of lots
A lot owner must—
(a) properly maintain in a state of good and serviceable repair any part of the lot that affects the outward appearance of the lot or the use or enjoyment of other lots or the common property; and
(b) maintain any service that serves that lot exclusively.

Re ” maintain any service that serves that lot exclusively”.  As far as I know the service can exist anywhere including on Common Property.  The lot owner must still repair and maintain it.

[Austman]

If you live in the building of course you have a right to entry – and your key still works.

This to me seems a mix-up in communication. Changing a roller door in itself doesn’t mean the remote code will change.  That’s all done by the door controller.  If they changed that too then you might need the new code or even a new remote and that should have been given to you, if you are a resident.

But surely if they changed the door code/system but not all the remotes there would be many others in your situation?   If other remotes are still working then you might have, by coincidence, a faulty remote unit?

Talk to you neighbours?

[Austman]

How could the OC know it’s your (or your daughter’s) car if it was not parked in your allocated car space?

We have this issue in our OC.  Parked on common property?  We just can’t always be sure who owns the vehicle.

So, unless signage specifically stated that parking was allowed where the car was parked, the car could look illegally parked to an OC.  And if it had been there for weeks – it could look as dumped.

[Author]

Replies