[Austman]

Just to add, in our OC, the Essential Services we maintain includes:

Fire sprinklers, Remote Monitoring, Smoke Detectors, Fire Extinguishers, Fire Hoses, Fire Hydrants, Fire Alarm system, Fire Doors, Exit Lighting, Exit Doors, Exit Pathways, Emergency Lighting.  And more.

It’s quite a long list, but most of it is simple to test and maintain.  Most modern buildings would have similar maintenance obligations today.  Even smallish OCs like ours (12 lots).

[Austman]

Essential Services maintenance provider regulation is a area that authorities need to take a serious look at.

It’s our OC’s biggest annual maintenance expense.  My advice for any OC is to do an audit yourself.

I did this.  It’s complex and it took me a while.  But this some of what I discovered:

• It is essentially an unregulated industry.
• Service providers need minimal training and mostly no qualifications.
• Most maintenance involves simple inspections and log keeping.
• Remote fire monitoring (via digital radio) is a near monopoly in Australia – only two companies provide it and they charge the same.
• Even the industry admits most standards are over specified, meaning that the maintenance frequency is more often than really needed.
• There is zero legal obligation for an OC to employ anyone to do Essential Services maintenance.  The law says the owner must do it but it allows the owner to employ someone.  So If the OC feels competent, it can do the ES maintenance itself.  Of course, by employing a company(s) the OC meets its legal obligation.

I found the following for our OC:

• For the first 2 years our OC management did nothing.  We had no Essential Services maintenance at all!
• The management then noticed and employed an ES auditor (A) to set up our Essential Services maintenance. The EC was not informed.
• The ES auditor (A) chose company (B) to do most of the maintenance. But for some reason a third company (C) was also employed to do some of the work that (B) was also doing.
• For the next 6 years both (B) and (C) did some of the same work and charged the OC.  Neither the manager,  nor (A), (B) or (C) noticed this – but (B) and (C) must have seen the on-site log books of the other company.
• Company (B) on their website states that they will ES auditor (A) work too.  But when approached they said they no longer will do it and referred me back to (A).

So there’s no doubt there can be  a ‘cosy’ relationship between OC managers, ES auditors and ES maintenance companies themselves.  But whether this is anything illegal or not is another matter.

The EC went and got some quotes from another Essential Services maintenance company – but they turned out to be more expensive than our current providers.

In terms of the actual work performed Essential Services maintenance and monitoring is astonishingly poor value.  Most of the work is quick and very simple (just inspections really).  But it does need to be done!  It just should not cost many thousands of dollars per year for almost no actual work.

[Austman]

What does the cleaning contact state?  I’m guessing it probably does not include unit front doors. 

Front doors can be common property but if they are not part of the cleaning contract, the cleaner is perfectly right in asking that they be included (for a price) in the contract or as a once off cost.

[Austman]

I own a few rental properties. 

I fired all my managers and went to self managing.

The results for me:

1. It’s much easier to do than I ever imagined.  Email, SMS, mobile phones, internet banking, on-line access to forms and rules etc all make it more possible today no matter even if you are travelling. Apart from when the tenancy changes, it’s relatively easy and straightforward.

2. The tenants like it.  They aren’t dealing with a middle person either.  Of course you have to deal with their issues prompty and properly.

3. After many, many years of paying managers I’ve realised that when just about any ‘event’ happened, they contacted me to get my opinion/permission.  So I had to be involved anyway.

4. You know much more about your tenants and the relationship can be a very good one.  And if it’s not, at least you know.

It’s been 3 years now.  It was a good decision.

[Austman]

Thanks Whale, we’ll certainly keep that option in mind although any change to the existing system’s operation will probably need the whole Building Permit, re-certification, Occupancy Permit amendment path.

The system passed all it’s Occupancy Permit requirements 8 years ago.  I can hear the fans too (just) as a small part of my living room is effectively right above the car park area where the fans are and they don’t bother me at all. 

We’ll get some objective noise measurements done and take it from there.

In Victoria, certain equipment is exempt from the tough EPA residential noise laws including “equipment for personal care”.  I’m not sure if preventing carbon monoxide poisoning counts as equipment for personal care…

[Austman]

Thanks for the suggestion Whale.

I’m sure our current system works well as far as car park ventilation is concerned.  It’s the noise it makes (and only the noise at night) that is the issue.  We are in a heritage listed building with very limited possibility to alter air-flows etc. 

Changing the existing system needs a building permit,  performance certifications and an amendment to our Occupancy Permit etc.  The costs for this ‘paperwork’ alone are around $10,000.00.  Then there are the purchase and installation costs of the new system and the removal costs of the old one.  It will probably end up costing some tens of thousands of dollars for an OC of 12 owners.  And all of this because of one complaint after 8 years of operation.

So we on the committee have decided that we will get the Acoustic Engineer and see what can be done to the existing system.  At this point we are not even sure that the OC is technically at fault.  Perhaps the system is working within legal sound limits.  We’ll establish that too.  And a side issue  – when a lot owner accuses an OC of operating illegal equipment is it up to the OC to spend thousands of dollars (the Acoustic Engineer with cost over $1,000 in our case) to establish if the the lot owner is right or wrong?

[Austman]

The OC probably could make each owner pay, but it would seem petty to me.  Because it would become either owner pays directly for the detectors or owner pays the OC (by levy) who pays for the detectors. 

Having the OC pay for them seems more logical.  And it’s an important Essential Services measure that the whole building benefits from – not just each lot owner.

The ongoing maintenance of the lot detectors is another matter. The periodic testing (eg 6 monthly), cleaning and battery replacement should generally be the lot owner’s responsibility with the OC perhaps doing a major inspection/test every 10 years or so.  The latest hard-wired detector batteries can last 10 years.

[Austman]

It’s an interesting situation.

But consider if the OC’s common property failure caused damage to an adjoining (private) property.  The OC would be liable for that. 

And the OC’s insurance policy should have a Liability to Others section that covers such property damage.  Ours certainly does – I just checked it.

I can’t see that lot private property could be different to external private property.

The question might be who pays the OC’s insurance excess?

[Austman]

It’s been covered many times before.  It’s the OC’s responsibility.

If common property fails, the OC must repair it and the OC will be responsible for any damage the failure of common property caused to private property (ie the lot) (that’s common law).

[Austman]

@FlatChatFan said:
Deliria, you have been given some very good advice, especially from Jimmy, Whale and Struggler

But the original question was can the paint on an interior ceiling be removed (or changed) without OC permission.  And in short, the answer is yes it can.  It would have to be the most extraordinary situation for this not to be the case.

The developers are totally bluffing, as many who don’t understand OC laws (sadly) tend to do.

Make a phone call to a specialist lawyer.  Please.

The other matter about if the developers will act as they say after settlement.  Well, I’ve been hurt a few times on this and I would not trust them.  Developers tend to just walk away after settlement – they just stop corresponding and cancel their mobile numbers etc.  So have such matters legally agreed on before settlement. 

But that is not really the question you asked.  To which the answer is:

You can interiorly decorate as you like without OC permission.

[Austman]

Changing the Plan of Subdivision (that shows the car parking allocations) requires a unanimous resolution of the OC (at least in Victoria, probably similar in other states).

Unless that was done the re-allocation was illegal.  I suspect the EC and the manager know this.

You cannot just register the change.  The Titles Office will want to see proof that the OC legally agreed to to it.

Get your Plan of Subdivision, confirm your space and then request from the manager a copy of OC resolution that voted to change it.  It it wasn’t voted for legally then they are bluffing you.

[Austman]

Yes it seems very odd to me.

But in Victoria the waterproof membranes and tiles on a balcony or roof terrace (that in effect forms part of a roof) can be the owners responsibility, while the rest of those structures are the OC’s responsibility.  This is an extension of the logic that owners are responsible for surface treatments in their lots like carpets and paint.

It can lead to situations where the OC can then demand the owner take action when terraces or balconies leak into other apartments below. 

When is a common roof not a common roof?  Sometimes… when it’s a roof terrace. 

But I can’t see that the same rule could be apply to a dome…

[Austman]

Interior paint is generally the owner’s property.  It’s generally a decoration and you are free to interiorly decorate. I don’t know why OC permission would be needed if it’s just interior paint.  Unless there was some structual reason why the ceiling had to be painted, I can’t see how the OC could refuse permission anyhow.

[Austman]

@Mr Strata said:
Hi Felix,

The EC can’t grant exclusive use rights over common property, this can only be decided by special resolution at a general meeting.

Unless there is an exclusive use by-law, licence or lease passed by special resolution at a general meeting and registered within 2 years, the owner or resident bascily has no rights to use the space.

The EC’s decision is not final or binding.

The decision and action can be overturned by application for mediation/an order through Fair Trading.

Mr S

But the EC can decide how to use common property.  And if it was to allocate some storage space to owners (like installing lockers on common property where each lot gets one locker) that seems a reasonable use of common property (a bit like the way letter boxes are).  It would not be exclusive use and it could be revoked or changed at any time.  This is to improve the facilities in the building.  If this was properly documented, shouldn’t it be possible?

[Austman]

It’s a good question.  OCs can decide how to to use common property.  We are about to do a similar thing. We have a small-ish common area in one corner of our car park that we think we’ll use for storage. And then ban the storage of goods in actual car spaces (which makes the car park look like a junk yard at times).  There’s enough space to give each of our 12 apartments their own locker or small cage.

We don’t really want to get the Plan of Subdivision changed.

So I think we’ll vote for the solution, properly document it in OC records and clearly label each apartment’s locker/cage both in the OC records and on the locker/cage itself.  We’d leave any locks to be supplied by each owner.  But the locker/cages would stay common property on common property.

I think the key is the documentation of the decision.  If it’s not documented properly, problems like yours can happen in the future.

[Author]

Replies