Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
we would welcome suggestions and comments.
While it might seem like a good idea, OC/BCs have very little ability to demand that lot owners supply them with a key (or another means) to access their lots. If a lot owner wants to voluntarily do that, that’s their decision.
In true emergencies, the services involved will the get the access regardless. Even if it has to be forced.
By the way, in NSW there is no such item as “any other business” allowed on meeting agendas as that is a loophole that allows all sorts of nasty decsions to be made without prior notice. I’m not sure but it may be the same in Victoria.
It is most definitely allowed. But with limitations. Eg some Strata Managers will state similar to the following:
Items under this heading are to be submitted to the manager at least 7 days before the meeting so that they can be discussed by the members at the AGM. The General Business Agenda Item is a forum for discussion only and no resolutions of the owner’s corporation will be facilitated within this item.
And that was the intention of my advice. To bring up the matter, as I said, for “discussion” by the owners attending the AGM. That discussion should at least be considered by the committee when they make their decisions.
Campaigning for the committee is a good idea. But with a committee currently of just 3 (the minimum size for committees in Victoria) even just joining it would mean move direct involvement and influence in their future decisions.
The rules for building works are that the house must be empty. With a Strata apartment it is empty but we have builders using the common parts causing extra Covid risk. It seems there is a big loophole in this area.
I agree. It’s not clearly defined by the DHHS. The best I can make of their guidance is that strata common areas should be treated like public areas. Meaning that persons including trades must wear masks when in those areas. Trades are certainly still allowed to access or cross common property areas if the work they are doing is permitted.
I think that without further clarification from the DHHS, you’d have a tough time convincing police or the COVID hotline that there is a breach. Hopefully you’ll get a response from them.
Apart from putting a few notices in the lifts giving times of noisy work i.e 9-10 10.30-12.30 and 1-2 he is oblivious to the many complaints by residents as is the building manager and OC chairman they just say he is legally able to do the work.
If he has received written committee permission to make the noise, he probably is allowed to. That’s part of the Model Rules in Victoria. Model Rule 6.2(2) “6.2 Noise and other nuisance control” applies. You’d have to get enough other owners together to organise an OC meeting that rescinds that permission.
. With a Strata apartment it is empty but we have builders using the common parts causing extra Covid risk. It seems there is a big loophole in this area.
ZOOM AGM coming up. How can I get the other 50 lot owners to care?
You might have left it a bit late if the AGM agenda has already been decided.
Else it’s to put an item on the AGM agenda and campaign the other owners to support it. You can get their contact details from the strata roll.
If the AGM agenda is set already, you can bring it up if there’s an “Other Business” item. Again, campaigning enough other owners to support a such a discussion with some specific directions for the committee should help.
And of course, joining the committee is always a good idea. In Victoria, committees have considerable authority outside general meetings.
It’s very good that this topic is being discussed on Flatchat. It seems to be an issue for many OC/BCs Australia wide. For many OC/BCs the maintenance of the fire safety systems in their buildings is a major annual expense. For the OC that I chair it is our second largest annual expense after compulsory insurance.
A characteristic of the fire safety industry is the partly interpretive nature of it. There are laws and standards that can be very precise in some areas but can be interpretive in others. In Victoria, the fire safety engineering design of a new building needs to be proposed by a qualified fire safety engineer and then peer reviewed by another. If you have any doubts about the interpretive nature of some parts of fire safety design, simply read a fire safety engineering peer review. The registered building surveyor decides the final fire safety engineering design and sets the maintenance requirements of that design in the building’s Occupancy Permit, in a schedule titled “Essential Service Requirements”. That’s where the term “Essential Services” comes from. The Essential Service maintenance requirements, most of which are inspections and testing, are ongoing legal obligations for the OC.
The partly interpretive nature of the fire safety industry carries over into maintenance. So you sometimes get Essential Services maintenance vendors disagreeing with other vendors about the standards. And you get frustrated OCs wondering how come their building passed inspections for years then suddenly failed due to something that existed when it was first certified and occupied. I’ve actually had our original registered building surveyor back on site to explain a couple of those to me. And to their credit, they did. So that’s an option for an OC/BC.
The way I originally dealt with the issue, as an OC chair, was to learn what our Essential Services maintenance obligations actually were. That’s was time consuming. But it did at least allow me to converse with our Essential Services vendors in a much better way.
I can say too that there are some good Essential Services vendors out there. And that an OC is not obliged to use an inspection and testing vendor to carry out any repairs and replacements. We often seek other quotes for the repairs and replacements part elsewhere. But that’s more work for the OC.
And I wrote a document, some of which is below, mostly for my own and the committee’s benefit. It’s my opinion/experience only and sorry if it’s too long or too Victoria specific:
Essential Services in Our Buildings
General
Owners (including Owners Corporations) are required by law to inspect, test, maintain and monitor the
Essential Services that are listed on their Occupancy Permit according to the schedule stated on the permit. Owners are also required by law to produce an Annual Essential Safety Measures Report (AESMR).Legal Aspects
The law does not specify who, apart from the owner, must inspect, test, maintain and monitor the Essential Services or produce the AESMR. The main requirements are that inspections and tests are done by a competent person at the required intervals, are properly logged for any future inspection and that monitoring should be continuous with a certain level of redundancy. If any faults are found due to the inspections and testing, the repair of any equipment must be done by licensed trades persons.
That an Owners Corporation employs anyone to inspect, test, maintain and report on Essential Services is completely optional. There are no legal requirements for an OC to do so. That an Owners Corporation
employs someone to continuously monitor an Essential Service is probably the only realistic option.
Although the law allows an Owners Corporation to delegate the Essential Services duties to “specialist
maintenance contractors”, an Owners Corporation is not compelled to employ anyone if they believe they have the competence to do the work themselves.Specialist Maintenance Contractors in Victoria
Contractors who perform Essential Services “specialist maintenance” in Victoria need not be licensed nor must they have any formal qualifications. They must however be competent. The industry is, in effect, unregulated.Owners Corporations Options
Because Essential Service inspections, testing, maintenance and monitoring are vital to the safety of all
occupants of the building, it is probably wise for an Owners Corporation to employ Essential Services
“specialist maintenance contractors”.What Exactly do the “Specialist Maintenance Contractors” do?
Most of the routine inspection and testing of Essential Services is not complex and takes just minutes to
perform. Some inspections and tests take longer but they are done at yearly or half yearly intervals. All
inspections and tests however require on-site visits. Continuous Fire Alarm Monitoring, one of the most expensive items in Essential Services, is effectively a duopoly in Victoria. The two companies that offer the service use specialised radio equipment that remotely detects an alarm from our Fire Indicator Panel and automatically calls the fire brigade. The actual work that “specialist maintenance contractors” do seems poor value for money. The inspections often take just a short time each week (or month or quarter) yet cost thousands of dollars annually. At an hourly rate, the cost of the tests and inspections approaches $400/hour. If any repairs are required, they are charged separately.Our current vendor costs are however typical of the industry.
We did later change vendors for a considerable savings. The industry seems to be becoming more competitive.
Am I entitled to withhold my fees when they are due?
Never do that!
I’m a bit confused when you say “committee decision” and then later say an “AGM decision”. There is a ranking order in that an AGM decision will out rank a committee decision.
But either way the gate was approved, so unless the decision was by an AGM interim resolution, meaning an AGM resolution made without a quorum, it should go ahead.
However if it was an AGM interim resolution, then the strata manager is correct in delaying its execution. Any objecting owner has 29 days to challenge the decision. They must however be in a position to be able to require a general meeting to be called where the issue will be reconsidered.
That’s a limitation of “interim” resolutions.
Check with the DHHS.
But some specific information regarding renovations is here:
<h3 id=”can-my-renovation-proceednbsp”>Can my renovation proceed?</h3>
Tradespeople and builders can only visit your home for renovations if you have fully vacated the property and are not staying there during the period of Stage 4 restrictions.If you have vacated the property, then renovations can proceed in line with restrictions on residential construction.
If you’re still living at the property, then tradespeople and builders can only make emergency repairs.
https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/stage-4-restrictions-summary-covid-19#can-my-renovation-proceednbsp
More details of the event are needed.
But negligence of the OC/BC has to be established for it to be legally liable. Eg if the OC/BC knew there was a common property defect but failed to address it, that would be negligence. If the failure of the OC/BC to maintain common property to the required standard caused the event, that would be negligence. But if the event occurred without the OC/BC’s prior knowledge of any defect, that’s unlikely to be negligence. So it really depends on the details of the event. And to make it even more complex, there can situations where contributing negligence means partial liability…
Insurance is another matter. The OC/BC’s compulsory strata building insurance might cover some of the damage caused by the event regardless but that in itself doesn’t make the OC/BC legally liable. If the OC/BC is found to be legally liable, it’s strata liability insurance will hopefully will cover all of the damage else they would have to pay for it themselves.
Lot contents are never covered by OC/BC compulsory strata building insurance unless the OC/BC is found to be legally liable. That means lot carpet, curtains, furniture etc and tenant accommodation are not covered. Loss of rent might be covered by some policies.
So I’m not sure the OC/BC would always lose at a Tribunal/Court. It really depends on the details of the event and the circumstances around it.
If such a By-law were to be passed here, would the SC be able to issue fines over issues occurring previous to the By-law being passed? Retrospectively, as it were?
As scotlandx notes. No fines are possible.
I’d like to note that some of my OC/BCs in some states issue a Breach Notice and then recover the administrative cost of issuing that Breach Notice by billing the “offending” lot.
So it becomes a cost recovery exercise rather than a fine. A technical difference but I note that some OC/BCs have been successful in recovering that cost when it has gone to a Tribunal.
‘Before “difficult” insert the word “ridiculously”.’
Agree. But:
“or used for other purposes.”
There can be other ways, including setting the regular levies lower for the next financial year(s) so that the “excess” administration funds are consumed.
Very awkward, and undesirable but that least the funds are eventually returned to the lots.
I agree with scotlandx.
If the special levy was correctly approved at a General Meeting, it needs to get “unapproved” at a General Meeting or by the Tribunal.
At least any money raised stays with the OC. And, although difficult to do, can be redistributed back to the owners or used for other purposes.
Do they do it “all the time”?
Yes, all of mine do. Especially for common property areas where a resident or owner shouldn’t ordinarily need to be.
But this is about an OC provided recreational facility. Setting the hours of operation and even a season is commonly done by OCs. I think it would be likely that a Tribunal would agree that the OC itself gets to decide them. And even to remove the facility altogether if it so voted. I know of OCs that have done that.
Comparing it to car park access is not really the same thing. And if the parking space is on title, as is now the norm, an OC must provide 24/7 access to it.
I can’t see how setting the hours of operation of a recreational facility could be considered as “altering common property”.
However, shutting off the heating basically means closing the pool. Will tenants in the building be able to claim rent reductions for the duration, due to reduced facilities?
Maybe, but that’s for the landlord to deal with. Including their input to decisions of the OC.
And can the committee and/or owners corporation do this anyway without a by-law since it is altering common property?
What’s being altered? In reality, OCs restrict access to common property all the time.
As long as they don’t block 24/7 access across common property to the lots and do it fairly there’s usually not a problem.
Compulsory strata building insurance doesn’t cover lot contents.
So to have any chance of claiming from either the OC/BC or its insurer, you’d have to establish the OC/BC’s liability which usually means establishing their negligence.
With water leaks, especially from storms or burst pipes, it can be sometimes difficult to establish that negligence. If the OC/BC failed to maintain gutters properly they might be negligent. If it was a building failure eg due to a storm or a 100 year rain event they might not be negligent.
It’s usually easier to claim on your own contents insurance and leave any consequential claim against the OC/BC to them.