[Billen Ben]

I sat in on a Tribunal matter where the case involved 17 people being in a strata unit in Byron Bay. An owner let the property and the lessee then used the place as a “backpackers” for people looking for cheap, short term, accommodation. 

One interesting aspect of the matter was the way the lessee could make good money before the system finally got around to doing anything.
By moving from lease to lease and doing this sort of cramming a person can make quite a good living given the systems inability to address such issues in real time. The lessee had shot through prior to the hearing but would have made quite good money by the time the whole process had got that far.

Of further interest was the way the Member viewed the matter. It was a question of fire safety for the Member. Could 17 people be reasonably expected to be able to safely get out of the unit in the event of a fire. No no no.

The slowness of the dispute resolution mechanism of the SSMA is like a host for some parasites to attach themselves to and it is impossible to tell Macquarie St anything.

[Billen Ben]

Infocus said:

Under the POEO Act, a resident can seek a court-issued noise abatement order for harmful noise emitted by neighbours. 

 

Is there a corresponding law protecting against harmful smoke? If not, is this an inconsistency in NSW legislation?

What is harmful smoke? If it comes out of a wood-fire heater; is that harmful smoke? I recall when i lived in the ACT the legislature made changes to only allow certain types of wood to be burned so as to maintain a level of air quality in winter.

I live in a SP where the smell of wood fires fills the night air every winter. Half the time it smells like somebody is burning plastic logs. The smell is arguable worse than residual smoke from a fag.

I have lived in the Shire of Sydney when the National Park is on fire, the sky goes red and there is a haze of smoke. Some nights in this SP are similar to that level of smoke; it is like there is a bush fire somewhere.
What comes out some of the chimneys here is excessive. If there were to be laws against “harmful” smoke then I feel there is the odd person in my SP who will rediscover the meaning of winter chill.

[Billen Ben]

Macfadyen said:

Thank you Simone however I fear the EC Committee are about to put 'mates' of theirs as Strata Managers replacing our current ones so there will never be a fair go for those in the complex not currently in favour. 

Here is one of the real problems in strata that neither the Act no CTTT will address; the clique running an SP as their little kingdom.

Is there anything that leads to more dysfunction in an OC than people looking after their mates while treating with disdain those not in favour.
Flat Chat is littered with account after account of people not “in” being treated as lepers; stories of those “in” having their nests feathered at the expense of others.

I often state to CTTT that this sort of behavior is dysfunctional management but I would say the practice has become so common place and wide spread it is now an elephant in the room.

[Billen Ben]

Obviously any self managed strata plan is disadvantaged by this sort of “kick back” scheme.

Here is an idea; how about next year at the AGM the SP resolve to engage an agent solely and expressly for the purpose of gaining insurance and nothing else. The agents authority could be restricted to just that one matter. The fee for the agents service being half the commission, the SP gets the other half.

In the above case it means a few phone calls and a little work by the agent earns a $950 return … sounds like easy money.

If there is an agent looking for easy money then why not set yourself up to just do insurances for self managed SPs on a 50 – 50 commission basis. The agent makes easy money and the SP get a better deal …. win , win.

[Billen Ben]

Just a quick suggestion. Have the Chair put motions to accept quotes to the meeting; i.e put the motions on the agenda and have it put to the meeting. At least you are deciding to accept the quote or declining to accept the quote.

If the EC continually declines quotes for necessary work then there are other ways to get it done.

[Billen Ben]

considerate band fair said:

Hi ElevenSeven,

I believe you pretty much just own the air space of your property. Though most owners use floor, walls and ceilings to do their own thing. Without permission from OC and without usually complaint. Fittings are another issue. So under the floor would be common property. In fact the ceiling and the floor would be considered common property I think. But this would depend on why you are asking this question and what it relates to?

Big Cheers

Absolutely.
Have a look at your unit plan and see. Strata is generally cubic air space and if the area below the floor is not on your plan then it is common property.
Your unit plan holds the answer. The unit plan would have been in your contract when you purchased.

[Billen Ben]

Jeremy @ Newcastle said:

1. Can a motion to receive an update morph into  something as important as accepting a defect insurance offer?

 

“The question the consequently arises is whether, during the meeting, the Chair may accept any amendment to a motion of which notice has been given. The generaly accepted principle is that an amenedment is allowable only if the proposed change is wirthin the scope of the notice which has been given, and accordingly an amendment which materially alters a motion of which notice has been given will often not be accepted.” HORSLEY'S MEETINGS A.D. Lang 4th edition pg 110

Has the amendment materially altered the motion?

If i was voting by proxy then i would have no problem with original motion, it is harmless to pass it, but i would not be so free and easy about the morphed motion. I would want to see the detail.

Had i been chairing the meeting then i would not have accepted the amendment and stated it materially altered the motion from a motion that accepted information to a motion that accepted an offer – these are starkly different decisions. Notice to accept an offer has not been given.

It probably should not have morphed to such a degree.

[Billen Ben]

How far into the future are we still going to be seeking these changes?
If the past is any guide then the answer is a long time, too long.

[Billen Ben]

The  urbanspaceman and bpositive offer a “hardcore” solution.
We have about 10km of internal roads with a 20km speed limit. Everybody breaks the 20km/h by-law. Imagine the revenue someone would gain with 100 people breaking that by-law everyday,

Impose a $10,000 fine for breach of bylaws (no exceptions) – that is a million a day.

Hardcore!

I fully support the strata police concept.

[Billen Ben]

Thanks for the comments Jimmy.

I am not sure if the EC actually mailed the agendas or just went and stuck them in the communal box with the pigeon holes (as they have with other notices) but your comments on the difference are most noteworthy. The first set of EC minutes will show the cost of the mail out and that will reveal if it was mailed or not.

Tampering with the mail is a criminal matter and someone is claiming to have reported it to police.

I would agree that if the AGM notices were never mailed, just pigeon holed, then there is arguably no crime.

I would agree the only obligation with mailboxes is that found in s114 of the SSMA and that relates to the OC’s mailbox only; not the owners. I would agree the AGM needs to address the matter of individuals mail.

I have talked to the local post mistress and explained the big green box at the front of the SP is the OC’s mailbox, not the individual owners. Owners mail should not be getting put in it.
There are even 4 owners who have their own mailbox at the entrance.

There have been several motions at previous AGMs to purchase a bank of boxes but all have failed as the prime objective of a low levy always overrides such motions. As much as i find the relocation of the “mail” a poor act it does bring to the fore the long standing problem of mail security. This year the mailbox motion may pass.

It isn’t only general information “floating” around as the AGM notice also contained 2 CTTT applications with a closing date for submissions of the 12th of July and the latest levy notice for the particular unit. There is a lot of information in the notices and that anybody could just walk off with 40 or 50 copies isn’t good enough from the self-management.

It really is a poor situation and many owners have PO boxes because of the long history of mail tampering. This doesn’t help when it comes to voting for a motion to purchase a 100+ box system. These people will not vote for mailboxes when they already have a secure system.

[Billen Ben]

What a great topic.
I will just quickly mention that in my first post i say the required Workers Comp policy because i believe we are above the exemption threshold and we do employ sole traders.

The policy is not required for every strata. I'm glad Mr Strata picked that up. Some really excellent “posting” by Mr Strata.

I have been looking over the Workers Comp Act. I have been looking at s174  “what is wages”

Do payments to EC members qualify as wages?

The SSMA calls such payments as being for “recognition of services” and the definition of wages in the WCA Act s 174 doesn't really talk about that sort of context.

[Billen Ben]

If the $28 is for a s108 search then it is $30 for the first hour and $15 for every additional hour in the 2010 Regs; unless it has changed, which it does.

In my SP the mail is never on the agenda and it is only “after the fact” that owners know what has come and gone; often mail is not recorded as incoming or outgoing which makes it hard to ask for at a s108 search because one can't ask for what one does not know exists.

Often mail is opened and action immediately taken. Say for example there is a compliant about a dog on unit XX; the EC will sometimes immediately vote to send a notice to comply; depends who owns unit XX.
It has all been brought up with CTTT who didn't care – the OC thus feel vindicated in there hopeless management.

To get back to the issue:
Section 104 of the SSMA requires the OC to keep, for 5 years, copies of correspondence received and sent by the owners corporation.

Correspondence received and sent by the owners corporation should be recorded in the EC minutes.

[Billen Ben]

Thanks random; some sound recommendations.

The situation was that the 2009/10 admin budget went $5k into deficit and then the 2010/11 AGM approved a budget that was about $15k less than the 2009/10 admin budget with the same expected expenditure. It seemed obvious the admin budget would go well into deficit again.

I just got the auditors report (large SP) and the admin budget went over $18k into deficit in 2010/11.

In a s162 application i included the auditors report for 2009/10 and showed the budget seemed ridiculously small and that a deficit seemed very likely again. Poor financial managment meant nothing to the adjudicator and did not even get a mention.

This is one of those SPs where most people have no idea, AGMs are very hostile environments, as long as there is money in the bank no one really cares what is going on financially and penny pinching at an AGM is an owners duty.

There was enough money in the sinking fund to cover debts but the idea the money was being spent from the other fund and needed replacing as required by the Act is a concept the EC would never accept. OC funds are like a general revenue coffer to the Treasurer, it is all OC money and there is no real distinction between the funds.

The OC is run by a dominant clique whose attitude towards compliance is poor, replacing the EC is not an option; the only real hope was a s162 order but that failed.

What do owners do when they can see it coming and nobody wants to know about it? I think Jimmy T may have answered that one in another topic; time to move out.

Unfortunately anyone who does a strata inspection is likely to be shown the SP has compliance issues that lead to the erosion of equity and so the whole financial issue devalues a units worth if it does not completely dissuade a buyer.

[Billen Ben]

I look forward to what is suggested for this one because my neighbors rooster never shuts up.

[Billen Ben]

JimmyT said:

And let's create a “move on or move out” ruling – if someone has more than, say, three goes at their Owners Corporation, they can't come back to the CTTT for a year.  If life in their building is so bad, they should move out.

Move where; to another bad building, and another and another until one finds a decent one that could then degrade to become a bad one because three spins of the chocolate wheel means it is time to move out.  I do not think a three strikes clause is a good idea.

Remove the so called “Super Tribunal” from the equation.

CTTT dealt with just over 1450 applications in 2009/10. There are roughly 260 working days in a year. That is 5.5 cases per working day.

Strata is only 2.5% of the CTTT cases load and so there is no real incentive for professional development in that particular area. It is not cost effective.

Detach strata from the general day to day cases of CTTT and make it a specialist arm of CTTT instead of something Members deal with outside of their ordinary day of Tenancy and Retail matters.

IF a Strata specific arm was set up;

• using just 2% of the CTTT annual budget (based on the 2009/10 CTTT report) and
• a $10 government levy, per unit, for SP’s over 50 units – payable to the new strata specific arm by each OC after each AGM – required by new legislation.

THEN a strata specific body could have all the infrastructure of CTTT but it also has over $1,000,000 per year to be strata specific with.

For over a million dollars a year can a group of people specialising in strata deal with less than 6 matters a day?

If a million isn't enough then how much would it cost to have specialists deal with 6 matters a day?

Legislation should be modified to make decisions set precedents for other matters at that level until an actual court ruling sets a real legal precedent. (End the lottery and make outcomes more predictable)
Given the repeat nature of many cases by creating a standard it would mean many cases might never occur and some that do would be determined much quicker.

[Author]

Replies