Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You moved in before an Occupancy Permit was issued? According to the Building Commission that is illegal:
“Section 39 of the Building Act 1993 requires that – where a building permit states that an occupancy permit is required for the building, it is an offence for a person to occupy the building unless the occupancy permit has been issued. Therefore, it is the owner’s responsibility to ensure that the occupancy permit has been issued.”
Are you sure of the developer’s story? The Occupancy Permit should have been checked as part of the purchase process.
But the question was specifically:
“As a committee member you may also be held personally liable if you are aware of certain behaviour but did nothing to address the issue.”
So it’s really OC related. And I think it’s bluff. Committee members have immunity when acting in good faith. In which case it will be the OC that is liable for an act or omission by a committee member.
What does the OC Act (NSW) say? In Victoria, committee members have immunity:
118 Immunity of committee members
(1) A member of a committee or a sub-committee is not personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith—
(a) in the exercise of a power or the carrying out of a function under this Act or the regulations; or(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the exercise of a power or the carrying out of a function under this Act or the regulations.
(2) Any liability resulting from an act or omission that, but for subsection (1), would attach to a person, attaches instead to the owners corporation.
I suspect it would be similar in NSW.
What does the OC Act (in NSW) say?
In Victoria it 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.So it’s not the case in Victoria. And I’ve just replaced 4 of those transformers that have gone faulty at my own expense.
OT: Newer replacement transformers are small, electronic and very cheap. And probably run cool – it’s the downlights that get hot.
I have now had a reply to my question from the government authority (Land Victoria).
” This office would take the view that all boundaries defined as Interior face, in these circumstances, would take the same principal that applied to the interior of the building and would apply to the balconies etc. “
So it looks like in Victoria, for plans of subdivisions registered from October 2011 that use Interior Face, the outside terrace/balcony tiles and any waterproof membranes are not common property. They are therefore the owner’s responsibility to repair and maintain. The POS would have to specifically state it if otherwise.
@daveo said:
Sorry for confusing you all regarding “balcony” vs “terrace”. I ended up using the terms interchangeably. I tend to call mine a rooftop terrace but all the outside areas that are for unit owner enjoyment are labelled on the strata plan as balconies, regardless of whether they are tiled rooftop terraces or wooden decks that ‘stick out of’ the side of the building.Regardless, above my 2nd floor living room is one bedroom and, bending around the bedroom in an “L” shape is a flat, tiled outdoor area for my personal use only. The upshot is that water is coming through the membrane under the tiles and coming through the plasterboard in my living room. It’s just a matter of time until the plasterboard comes crashing down.
Thanks again, everyone. You really have helped enormously (although I’m not sure my neighbours will agree, given they’re all likely to be chipping in to fix ‘my’ terrace).
PS The building was only converted to units in June 2002.
As the building is in Victoria, the rules can be different to other states. Our OC managers in Victoria have published a guide that states that balcony tiles and waterproof membranes are the owner’s responsibility. Read it here:
https://vbcs.com.au/pdf/Elevation/VBCS%20Elevation%20Autumn%202012.pdf
I’ve questioned if this advice it correct. It’s certainly correct for interior tiles and waterproof membranes (eg in bathrooms):
From Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements) Regulations 2011, Part 2, 10 (4):
“(4) Unless otherwise specified on the plan, the location of any building boundary defined as—
(a) Interior Face lies along the interior face of any wall, floor (upper surface of elevated floor if any), ceiling (underside of suspended ceiling if any), window, door or balustrade of the relevant part of the building. Any internal coverings, waterproof membranes and fixtures attached to walls, floors, and ceilings are included within the relevant parcel;”But does the same for exterior areas like balconies and roof terraces? Can Interior Face even apply to exterior areas?
@daveo said:
Sorry for confusing you all regarding “balcony” vs “terrace”. I ended up using the terms interchangeably. I tend to call mine a rooftop terrace but all the outside areas that are for unit owner enjoyment are labelled on the strata plan as balconies, regardless of whether they are tiled rooftop terraces or wooden decks that ‘stick out of’ the side of the building.Regardless, above my 2nd floor living room is one bedroom and, bending around the bedroom in an “L” shape is a flat, tiled outdoor area for my personal use only. The upshot is that water is coming through the membrane under the tiles and coming through the plasterboard in my living room. It’s just a matter of time until the plasterboard comes crashing down.
Thanks again, everyone. You really have helped enormously (although I’m not sure my neighbours will agree, given they’re all likely to be chipping in to fix ‘my’ terrace).
PS The building was only converted to units in June 2002.
As the building is in Victoria, the rules can be different to other states. Our OC managers in Victoria have published a guide that states that balcony tiles and waterproof membranes are the owner’s responsibility. Read it here:
https://vbcs.com.au/pdf/Elevatio/VBCS%20Elevation%20Autumn%202012.pdf
I’ve questioned if this advice it correct. It’s certainly correct for interior tiles and waterproof membranes (eg in bathrooms):
From Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements) Regulations 2011, Part 2, 10 (4):
“(4) Unless otherwise specified on the plan, the location of any building boundary defined as—
(a) Interior Face lies along the interior face of any wall, floor (upper surface of elevated floor if any), ceiling (underside of suspended ceiling if any), window, door or balustrade of the relevant part of the building. Any internal coverings, waterproof membranes and fixtures attached to walls, floors, and ceilings are included within the relevant parcel;”But does the same for exterior areas like balconies and roof terraces? Can Interior Face even apply to exterior areas?
@flatmate said:
can the owners Corporation restrict the use of Common property facilities such as Swimmingpools and Gymnasiums to residents only?The law can be different in each state. But in Victoria, the answer is Yes:
Owners Corporations Act 2006
SCHEDULE 1
POWER TO MAKE RULES OF OWNERS CORPORATION
4 Use of common property
4.1 Use of common property.
4.2 Use of equipment, services and amenities on common property.Here are the rules in Victoria, but they mainly relate to Commonwealth Acts so apply in all states:
Protecting privacy in owners corporations
Your owners corporation may only collect and use personal information in a fair and lawful way.
The personal information it holds must be accurate, up-to-date and secure.
As a general rule, the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988:
- does not apply to owners corporations with less than $3 million turnover (also called gross income)
- will apply to an owners corporation, regardless of turnover, if it discloses personal information to another party for a benefit, without the consent of the person concerned, or without being authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament (such as the Owners Corporations Act 2006).
Your owners corporation should:
- require a written request from all people seeking to inspect the owners corporation’s records. This identifies the person making the request and can be used to report to the owners corporation, and
- supervise records inspections to ensure that documents are not lost, destroyed or interfered with.
A person whose details are kept in the owners corporation’s records or register may apply to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to restrict access to that information. The tribunal will only restrict access in exceptional circumstances and only for a limited time.
For more information about complying with the Commonwealth privacy laws, visit the Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner website.
In our OC, we don’t give out contact information as a matter of course. However the records are there and owners can inspect the records after a written request.
As far as the information you must supply to the OC. Phones and emails are not compulsory to have in Australia. You must supply however your name and address. From a practical point of view an email and phone number helps!
When, as an EC member I wish to send an email to all owners and or residents, I use the BCC function.
@JimmyT said:
How does an Owners Corp take action against non-residents?
Because the OC has a right to make rules on “Behaviour of owners, occupiers and invitees”? (at least they can in Victoria) And in Victorian model rules: “An owner or occupier of a lot must take all reasonable steps to ensure that guests of the owner or occupier do not behave in a manner likely to unreasonably interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of any other person entitled to use the common property.”
So this goes far beyond owners or occupiers to include anyone that is even “invited”. So it is ultimately the owner or occupier that is responsible. And they are the persons that the OC takes action against.
But the question still remains, can an OC realistically or legally ban the use of a lot’s car space by non-residents? I know the reasons for it (security concerns etc). I just don’t see how it can be legally or practically done. Sub-letting is not illegal. And an owner/occupier might allow anyone to have the car space for free if they wanted (eg it might be for a family member or a friend). An owner/occupier might want to allow a visitor to park there. How would the OC even know?
@JimmyT said:
Many unit blocks in Sydney ban letting car spaces to non-residents and a by-law forbidding it being the most obvious mechanism for doing this.It happens in Victoria too. Even in a building where I own a leased apartment. But I have often wondered if it is legal. Or if it would stand up, if legally challenged.
OC’s cannot restrict if a lot gets let or who the lot is let to. So I wonder how they can do it to a car space – which is also a lot or part of a lot.
Controlling general security and resident behaviour is one thing. And if a non-resident caused problems there would be a case to take action against them. But banning letting or sub-letting? Can it realistically be done?
As for security – well anyone can give out door PIN codes, remote control devices and even copies of building keys that are not copy protected. There are limits to what can be practically done re the common entry security to many buildings. Is a car space renter necessarily an increase in security risk over the party giver that gave out the PIN code to 50 friends?
Cabling will not necessarily show on building plans. It certainly does not appear on our building plans (built 8 years ago). And services to lots can most certainly run through other lot’s internal walls.
The OC is responsible for the repair and maintenance of services if they service more than 1 lot (common services). But you did get permission from the OC to demolish the wall. The OC permission should have stated that you would be responsible for costs of restoring any services to other lots that you might accidentally disrupt.
@Unexpected Leigh said:Anyhow keeping dogs (or cats for that matter) in apartments is cruel to the animals themselves as well as the neighbours and self-indulgent of you. Get a free-standing house with a yard.
I don’t want to diminish the noise rules/laws, because that is what the complaint is all about. But the assertion that keeping pets in apartments is cruel is ridiculous.
Go to Europe or even cities like New York, Tokyo… Millions and millions of people keep dogs, cats and other pets in apartments . They will disagree with you.
My next door neighbour has a wood floor that has always existed in the apartment. The problem is that they have a football (soccer) game table that they play all though the night (meaning at 4am, 5am etc).
Can you imagine the noise this makes? All the banging of the table and control rods, the stomping/running, and the balls dropping on the floor.
What an inconsiderate jerk. And he is an owner. Regardless of the noise wooden floors can make, there is consideration of your neighbours. It would be noisy enough at 4pm. It's ridiculous at 4am.