Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We are in Victoria btw
And there we have it.
Unfortunately the majority of water leaks from balconies, terraces and bathrooms in Victorian stratas is a lot owner responsibility.
Waterproofing, including waterproofing membranes, is usually a lot responsibility anywhere below the lot airspace. Waterproofing, including membranes, titles etc are seen to be surface treatments similar to paint in other states. Balconies and terraces are treated similarly to bathrooms.
You might need to get legal advice on whether it’s your responsibility or not.
Is somewhere I can find the relevant legislation or guideline on whether an owner can attend a general (committee) meeting if she/he is not a committee member, in Melbourne Victoria?
(I think you left out the word committee?)
It’s all in Part 5 of the Owners Corporations Act 2006 VIC.
It’s not that owners or others can’t attend committee meetings, it’s more that committees in VIC are not required to invite them or even give anyone outside the committee notice of committee meetings. Committees are required however to keep minutes but they need not distribute those minutes to all owners. But they do of course become part of OC records.
I don’t run my committees that way. I always inform all owners of committee meetings and distribute committee meeting minutes to all owners as well. And if owners wish to attend, we can consider that request.
But that’s me.
Unless the law has changed you can take the following to the bank if the work is wholly within the lot.
Or even outside the lot as my stratas have discovered.
Planning approval is one thing. Anyone can pay the application fee and tick the boxes which inform the council that they either own the property or have informed the owner of the property (even if they haven’t).
And they might get council planning approval.
But AFAIK, actually altering property that you do not own is still illegal.
The title is the legally defining document of property ownership in Australia. It contains the property owner’s name and address.
The so called strata roll in VIC need only contain the lot owner’s name and address (which has to be a mailing address for non-resident owners). That’s it according to the OC Act (VIC) – just a name and an address. That information is supplied to an OC by a seller and updated by a new owner.
Of course, strata rolls now tend to have a lot more information such as, phone numbers, email addresses, managing agent details, tenant details etc etc.
While the lot owner’s name on the strata roll must match the title, all the other details in the strata roll are pretty loose and can be updated rather informally. There’s no official form – an email or phone call might suffice. And it sometimes goes wrong. And has in my stratas.
When it does goes wrong and contact with the lot owner is lost, my SMs have obtained a new copy of the title and have used that address to officially contact the lot owner. They have told me that is the legal requirement. So it’s important for non-resident lot owners to keep their title’s contact address up to date.
Bottom line: The title and the strata roll must match as far as lot owner’s name is concerned. And if contact goes wrong, the title’s address is the legal contact address.
While I mostly agree with kaindub, I think it is important to know the actual legal owner and their legal address. Only the legal owner is a member of the Owners Corporation.
The situation comes up from time-to-time in my statas. The defining ownership document is the title.
In Victoria, a copy of that title (text only) can be obtained from Landata, online, for $7.25. Delivered by email almost instantly.
https://www.landata.vic.gov.au/
The Chairman and the OC (majority not all) refuse to discuss the essence of our complaints.
I think it would be very helpful if you told us what the “essence of our complaints” actually is.
and refuse legal OC training
What “legal training” are you referring to?
Does this mean that in Victoria if I fix my own windows I do not need to pay to fix anyone else’s windows?
In Victoria, there is what’s generally called “The benefit principle”. It can apply to an OC’s funding of common property works. But only if those works are not part of an annual budget or are to be paid for by a special levy. The OC itself must still carry out the works.
The benefit principle means lots that benefit more pay more. So the usual formula of using a lot’s units of liability is not used.
If for example, an OC raised a special levy to repair all windows but your lot did not need that repair, the OC could apply the benefit principle and not include you in the special levy.
How to apply the benefit principle can sometimes be complicated. It’s a decision of either the committee or the OC itself. But if a lot owner thinks it should be applied or that was incorrectly applied, they can challenge the OC’s decision at VCAT.
I have suggested that all communications that relate to common property, should be communicated to all committee members, discussed and decisions made. She refuses.
I sympathize with you but you should realise that no single owner can tell a SM what to do.
Get the committee itself to make the request.
To add:
You need to be sure that it’s the other lot’s property that is causing the issue. If it’s common property that’s causing the issue, the OC must repair it.
And sometimes in these situations it’s the Water Act 1989 that also applies. Under the Water Act, owners of property can be liable for water flow into another property. That liability can apply within an apartment building.
Does the OC legislation in Vic cover this situation?
I agree that s.129 is the part of the OC Act that covers this situation. A lot owner can choose to independently start a legal process against another lot owner due to s.129 without the OC’s involvement.
I have not seen a case where the OC itself was compelled to take action under s.48 if only lot property was being adversely affected. Most OCs in VIC leave lot to lot water ingress matters to the two lot owners to resolve and for insurance to take care of any consequential damage.
But if the common property itself was being damaged the OC would be obliged to take actions under s.4 and s.46. In virtually all the lot to lot water ingress issues that I have dealt with, the common property itself was not damaged and did not need repair. Even mould affected lot ceilings were treated and then repainted. If it went on for too long or the ceiling (assuming it’s common property) became damaged it would be different.
There is not requirement for battery backup etc
If it’s a door in a required exit, it does need to meet all the requirements of NCC D2.21 Operation of Latch. A car park door/gate can, under some circumstances be a required exit door.
D2.21 requires a door in a required exit to be “readily openable” without a key in the ways listed. It also allows the door to be both power-operated and have a push button operation (on or near the door).
I was relating the battery backup part from the installers of our recently replaced power-operated car park doors/gates. They claimed that the battery backup feature was enough for the doors to meet D2.21. But it does look like the doors also still need to be manually openable without a key.
Any proper “emergency exit” cannot be power operated, or require a key or button to open.
They can both be power operated and push button if they eg in a car park door/gate situation. The door/gate motors must have a built in battery backup to comply. The ones used in my building have that as standard.
the gate has to also function as an emergency exit. That would be an unusual set of circumstances but not impossible.
It’s actually quite usual. It all depends on location and distances.
And, for whatever reason, car park doors, even basement car park entry doors are often referred to by the industry as “gates”.
I think it’s more do with a horizontal opening mechanism than a physical location.
The issue here is that I only have ‘3rd party property cover’ and my car insurers are saying this excludes property under my ‘care or custody’, i.e. the gate where I live
Can you tell us what insurance company that is? I’ve had a look at a few and it seems they usually cover rented premises where you are not responsible for building insurance.
Youi (below) is an example but it’s similar for others:
“We will not pay for any loss, damage or legal liability caused directly or indirectly:
…
by the car to property owned by or in the legal care of your household members, drivers listed on your policy schedule, or any person covered by your policy except where the property is a building that you are renting with a written rental agreement in place and you are not responsible for insuring the building;”I am an ‘approved occupant’ in a rental unit
Are they perhaps claiming that you don’t have a “written rental agreement” ?
I’m curious to know where the laundry chute goes.
Is it to a common laundry facility that everyone in the complex has access to? It would seem an odd arrangement to allow various independent lots to use the chute as they please and then sort out which are their items later where they all “land” (in the laundry room) at the end of the chute.
That’s why laundry chutes are usually for single commercial type operations. I’d agree to check the by-laws to see if their use is covered by one.