Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
While doing something about the issue might be warranted, I’d like to point out that it’s the BCA/NCC building codes (at the time of construction) that the OC needed to meet.
If the BCA/NCC codes were met, then changes to the construction are optional. I doubt that any Tribunal in Australia would rule otherwise.
If it can be established that the construction did not meet the BCA/NCC building codes (at the time of the construction) the result can be very different.
Else get enough owners on board and get things changed.
they are asking for a “please explain” and they are entitled to that, for sure.
Yes but from whom?
The committee will not likely be able to explain why prior inspectors failed to find certain things. And as the prior inspectors are no longer employed, they are not very likely to respond.
At best the new inspectors will simply stick to their opinions and blame the former inspectors for not doing a thorough enough job.
And so the blame circle goes around.
Fire safety systems are an expensive annual item in many of my stratas around Australia. In some it’s the number 2 annual expense after insurance. And next to none of the owners or managers knows much about them. Even the “professional” inspectors often disagree with each other.
A good inspection company can be very good. But there’s a lot of not so good ones out there.
the decisions made by the committee
I read the OP’s post a bit differently. More that it was:
the previous inspectors did not highlight the non-compliant issues
Unfortunately this happens all the time. It’s commonplace in all my stratas I would say. The reason is that fire safety compliance can be very subjective. And inspectors are not always very qualified or thorough.
Strictly speaking, I doubt a single strata building exists in Australia that is fully complaint. Even if you use the same inspection company, they can unexpectedly report matters that even their own company missed for years on end.
It’s the nature of the beast, so to speak. It’s very subjective, opinionated and the only reference used will be current standards which change all the time.
Slowly, the whole fire safety compliance industry is being regulated.
But is that what we need? Even more regulation?
In this area, perhaps, we do.
What happens if nobody wants to be on the Committee?
It’s quite common in VIC for small OCs not to have a Committee. All of the OC’s decisions (subject to s.11 limitations) get made by the Chair or the Manager. That works quite well for many small OCs.
If there’s no Manager or Committee and if no-one wants to be Chair, the OC risks becoming inactive or dysfunctional.
Inactive OCs are common in VIC but they are usually just 2 or 3 lots with little or no common property. Often the only common property is a driveway. Sometimes not even that. It can work quite well on a casual basis until it doesn’t.
Larger OCs without a Manager, Committee or Chair risk becoming dysfunctional. If that happens an Administrator can be appointed. That’s usually not a great result for anyone.
The purchaser’s solicitor should assess what their client is buying.
In VIC, for a horizontal type OC with little or no common property, their client is buying into an OC which has very limited liability.
Your OC does exist. They don’t extinguish. And your OC will have rules (bylaws). The default ones if nothing else.
It seems that no-one knows about them…
Settlement is in 2 weeks – would any solicitor agree to this sale without any formal agreements/bylaws?
It happens all the time for small horizontal type stratas in Victoria that have little or no common property.
In the Sale of Land s.32F, the seller declares the OC to be “Inactive”. An inactive OC means one that in the previous 15 months has not had an annual general meeting or fixed any strata fees or held any insurance. The insurance part might not be strictly true if a casual arrangement is in place between the lot owners.
The purchaser decides if that information is sufficient to proceed. For most it is.
Considering that horizontal type stratas in Victoria often have little or no common property, there’s not so much that such an OC needs to maintain.
But the OC will still exist. There is no such thing as an “inactive” OC in the OC Act itself. And by default the Model Rules (by-laws in other states) will apply. So all OCs in VIC will have rules whether they know them or not.
I’ll have a go at an answer but it’s a bit of a grey area.
It’s true that owner email addresses and phone numbers are not compulsory. Under s.134 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006, lot owners need only supply a name and an address. And s.147 to s.150 (Owners Corporation Register) states that’s all that an OC need to keep and supply when requested.
But many owners are happy to supply more contact information including an email address and a phone number. But there’s no such thing as a Strata Roll in the OC Act. There’s only the Owners Corporation Register. So while this extra contact information might be kept somewhere, there’s no requirement for an OC to do that or supply it when requested under s.150.
However it’s likely a requesting owner could find the extra contact information under s.146 (availability of records) if they were prepared to inspect the OC records. Because all OC correspondence should be there. It might not be in any neat form, like a Strata Roll, but it should be there somewhere.
It’s really just Strata Managers being difficult. They might create their own Strata Roll with the extra contact information but some consider that to be theirs, not the OCs.
For VIC:
Members of the Committee must be lot owners or hold proxies on behalf of lot owners. That’s Owners Corporations Act 2006 s.103(2). So persons who are not owners can potentially be Committee members.
If there is a Committee, there must be an elected chair. The Chair can be any member of the Committee. That’s Owners Corporations Act 2006 s.105.
Technically this is common land so needs committee approval.
Are you certain? Check the Plan of Subdivision. If the courtyard is lot property and Interior Face is used (it is the most common), then the lot owner has a right to decorate common property walls that surround their courtyard. Although outside, the walls are considered to be interior. That’s due to the Owners Corporations Act 2006 s.132:
132 Right to decorate interior walls, floors and ceilings
(1) If a boundary of a lot is shown on a plan of subdivision as being the interior face of the building, the lot owner has the right to decorate or attach fixtures or chattels to that face.If however they alter the external appearance (meaning it can be seen from outside the lot) they’d likely need OC permission. That’s due to the Model Rules. The appearance change would likely have to be significant. So check if the Model Rules apply to your OC:
5.2 External appearance of lots
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot must obtain the written approval of the owners corporation before making any changes to the external appearance of their lot.
(2) An owners corporation cannot unreasonably withhold approval, but may give approval subject to reasonable conditions to protect quiet enjoyment of other lot owners, structural integrity or the value of other lots and/or common property.This pipe services the hot water of my lot alone.
This is important in VIC (and some other states). In VIC, s.129 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 applies:
129 Care of lots
A lot owner must—
(a) … and
(b) maintain any service that serves that lot exclusively.It doesn’t matter where an issue occurs (on lot or common property), once a service exclusively services a lot, maintenance of it becomes a lot owner responsibility.
So the repairs are your responsibility. However the OC’s compulsory strata building insurance should help. As a member of the OC, you have a right to claim on that policy. It can depend on the policy but exploration costs and consequential damage can be covered. Sometimes more. It’s likely however that you would be requested to pay any excess but that’s a decision for the OC.
In VIC, any waterproof membrane on a lot’s boundaries usually belongs to the lot and is therefore a lot owner responsibility to maintain. This is due to the Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements) Regulations 2011 which states (for the typically specified Interior Face) that “Any internal coverings, waterproof membranes and fixtures attached to walls, floors, and ceilings are included within the relevant parcel;” The requirement applies to all lot wet areas including bathrooms and balconies.
This means that lot owners are often either fully or mostly responsible for leaking bathrooms and balconies. But it can depend on exactly where and how the leak occurs.
If it turns out to be a lot owner responsibility, how repairs are made is up to the lot owner. The lot owner can seek compensation from others including builders or insurers.
Compulsory strata insurance will not generally cover building defects. But it will often cover consequential damage. So while a balcony defect repair might have to be paid for by the lot owner, the damage caused by that defect to the lots or common property might be covered.
In my stratas, unless the internal lot smoke alarms are connected to a building’s central fire panel, they are considered to be a lot owner responsibility to maintain and replace.
I have strata managers that remind lot owners of that duty in every AGM notice.
It is a Police matter.
But up to you if you want to contact them or not.
By s.173 do you mean the Agreement that councils sometimes place on the title in VIC? Some of my stratas have had a s.173 agreement that did affect the use of car parking lots. But it didn’t affect common property.
I doubt the council will get involved unless parking is actually reduced in some way. Or a planning requirement is violated. I doubt it would be.
What I have seen work are the required standards and access laws. It seems councils don’t usually enforce them either. It needed the OC to be challenged by the affected lot owner at the Tribunal under the strata Act.
OCs permit extra parking on common property quite often.
When this issue has come up at Tribunals, there have been a few things that affected lot owners have used in their challenge:
1. There is an Australian Standard, AS 2890.1-2004 Parking Facilities Off-Street Car Parking, that councils usually specify in their planning approval. That standard includes required maneuvering areas. It’s unlikely an OC would be able to propose any changes unless that standard is maintained.
2. Access to lot property can’t be blocked by an OC’s actions.
Lot owners have successfully stopped OCs due to the above.