Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It’s a resort, Joyce – meaning the apartments are designed to be serviced daily.
Yes, that part was obvious. My point being why would a residential OC/BC need it? Many “complexes in a resort” are a mixed use strata. Both commercial and residential use. My family owns a lot in one but they are not part of the commercial resort operation.
So the laundry chute possibly belongs to the commercial OC/BC as part of their common property. And if so the residential OC/BC lot owners would not have access to it.
laundry chute
“Laundry chute”? In a residential strata? What on ever for? To save lot occupiers the hassle of carrying laundry to a common laundry room?
My first thoughts are that in mixed stratas there can be multiple OC/BCs and multiple common properties. Sometimes one OC/BC owns and has access to (and maintains) certain common property areas that the other OC/BCs do not.
Common property in mixed stratas with multiple OC/BCs can be a bit of an odd world of it’s own.
But it should all be documented in the strata plan.
(1) Can anybody direct me to legislation advising do we have to have am emergency push button?
Yes. It’s related to Required Exits and is covered by NCC/BCA part D1 and D2 – Provision for Escape and Construction of Exits.
If it’s necessary at all will depend of the layout of the car park and the distances to another Required Exit.
If the car park door forms part of a Required Exit (and that’s an IF), it must be possible to operate it in the manner specified by the NCC/BCA. That means no keys. AFAIK for electric doors that can’t be opened manually without a key, it needs a back-up battery too.
It’s not a lawyer you need to talk to but a Licensed Public Surveyor.
It would be an odd situation to had over all your keys at the end of a lease (or just near it) and not expect that the lease (and your access) had ended.
The landlord or their agent have their own keys for access. They shouldn’t have needed yours.
Did you agree that it was temporary and that you’d be collecting the keys back from them? It would have to be an arrangement like that…
Agent said handing over keys means I have vacated.
AFAIK that’s correct.
A lease ends when you vacate the premises and return the keys to the landlord or their agent.
You might still have to continue to pay rent depending on the termination notice given. But the landlord or their agent could enter the premises as they wished because you have terminated the lease.
I’d add that it’s also likely be be against current building standards/regulations.
Shared duct or exhaust systems have to be designed so that the exhaust from one room cannot vent into another room.
This usually involves having an inline exhaust fan in the final section of a shared duct after all the inputs from various rooms/lots have joined it. Or an exhaust fan on the roof itself. This ensures a negative air pressure at all room vents.
I’m not sure how your duct system was permitted without one but it might be due to the age of the building. Also without any fans, it might have replied on a chimney effect from the eventual roof outlet.
It’s a very common practice and mostly a fair one. Some OCs choose to use a security firm to provide fobs. Some can do it themselves. Many choose to use their SM.
Either way, to provide extra or replacement (due lost or damaged) fobs/remotes/common keys to individual lot owners, a user pays system is fair. It’s not really something the OC itself is benefiting from or requesting. If you are not happy with the OC’s arrangement with the SM, or the fees that they charge, you could always suggest that the OC use another method.
How do I make sure that the issue was due to a non-compliant or failed waterproofing requirement or standard that applied when the laundry was built or renovated?
You need to consult a qualified waterproofer/plumber.
But AFAIK in 1997, laundry floors in class 2 buildings (apartments) that were located above another sole-occupancy unit needed to be both waterproofed and have a floor waste.
If that’s where the leaking actually occurred, it was probably non-compliant.
It turns out that the tap in the laundry room upstairs was not switched off completely and was dripping
For sure there was a waterproofing issue. But the waterproofing required by the NCC/BCA depends on when the laundry was built or renovated.
Waterproofing requirements and standards for wet areas have improved substantially in recent years. But AFAIK laundry walls are still not required to be waterproofed in all areas. A leaking washing machine tap on a wall or inside a cupboard can still sometimes cause issues even in a compliant building. This has caused issues in some of my buildings. An occupier has moved out, disconnected their washing machine, but (accidentally) left a tap dripping. Not all of that water dripped its way to the waterproofed floor to be collected by the floor waste…
Before threatening the OC, I’d first make sure that the issue was due to a non-compliant or failed waterproofing requirement or standard that applied when the laundry was built or renovated.
Does anyone have anything that might assist?
It’s an area that interests me very much. You might like to read EB 9 & 10 Pty Ltd v The Owners SP 934:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2018/288.html
It goes into quite some detail about an OC’s obligations to provide access to common property. Even providing access the lot itself (a fundamental right of the lot owner) across the common property needs only to be “reasonable”. What is “reasonable” is for the courts to decide. It might be reasonable for an OC to provide 24/7 access across common property for the occupiers themselves but restrict that access to certain times for the occupier’s goods (furniture). It might be reasonable for an OC to restrict access to certain areas of common property due to safety and security concerns.
OCs can certainly restrict access to the common property in many situations. But the restrictions have to be both fair and reasonable.
Is it reasonable for you to have 24/7 access to your water cut-off valve? I think that would be considered reasonable unless the building had on-site 24/7 management (or another way) that provided that access in the case of an emergency.
Perhaps, but the OP says it’s not for an owner or tenant.
My point was meant to note that many laws, including strata laws and regulations, can also apply to “occupiers”.
Considering this is not for the benefit of a resident
I suspect the lot owner’s mother will be living there. And if that’s the case, while not an “owner or a tenant” they will be a resident/occupier.
While it’s for Victoria, here is perhaps an interesting commentary on what has happened there:
OCs may be obliged to carry out works to upgrade access for persons with disabilities
Some key points:
* The alterations must be “reasonable”.
* The alterations must be at the requesting resident/occupier’s expense.
Would I claim this to the upstairs insurance or do I have to claim it from mine?
If the paint is deemed to be lot property or not covered by the strata’s (OC/BC) insurance, you can:
1. Claim it on your insurance.
2. Try to sue any negligent party.
The latter can be hard to do for burst pipe scenarios.
Give the strata’s insurance company a call to confirm that paint is not covered.
The Strata Manager has advised this is not covered under OC insurance as the vehicle is not OC property. Question 1: has anyone had experience with this type of issue and what was the outcome? Question 2: where does the OC stand with respect to liability?
While it’s not OC common property, strata (OC/BC) compulsory insurance can cover more than OC common property. It can cover lot fixtures and fittings and OC liability for other damage. A car is not a lot fixture or a fitting, so it boils down to liability cover.
Q1: Yes. It usually depends on if the OC’s insurer considers the OC to be legally liable for the damage.
Q2: It usually needs negligence to be established. If the OC somehow negligently caused the leak, they would likely be liable. Else any other party that somehow negligently caused the leak would likely be liable.
That other negligent party might be a lot occupier who is not covered by the OC’s insurance (eg a tenant). But if the other negligent party was an owner occupier, they could independently try claiming on the OC’s insurance else on their own contents insurance.
I don’t believe that I should have to take it up with these owners and that this should be dealt with by the strata mgrs, to refund me, then deal with the owners themselves.
I think you are being a bit harsh on the SM, who has stated that you will be refunded.
When you paid the levy in July, the BPAY Biller Code and Reference Number equated to the other lot’s account. So it’s the other lot owner who benefited. But they probably would not have been aware.
Had your error been picked up sooner, you probably would have had a refund without too much of an issue. But it took around 3 months before it was discovered. That’s a very big factor. All the banks and the financial regulators state that these type of errors do need to be reported promptly.
When you paid the levy in July, the other lot’s account would have gone into credit for that amount. When it came time to issue a levy notice to the other lot, if the amount in their account met or exceeded that levy, no levy notice would have been issued. So the other lot owner didn’t pay anything because one one asked them to. And the levy amount would have been transferred from the other lot’s account to the OC’s account. And possibly then spent by the OC on its regular expenses.
So the SM now has to manually issue the levy notice to the other lot. And give them the legally required 28 days to pay. Once the other lot pays that levy, their account will have enough funds to enable the SM to refund you.
It’s quite a bit of work for the SM to do. It might not be fast enough for you. It does seem to be their preferred method. And you should get your refund… eventually.