[bluehouse]

Yikes! The OC can be responsible if something happens to the children and the insurer can say we didn’t prevent the playing?  I have made repeated efforts to stop a similar situation in our complex but with limited success. Can we still be responsible if parents ignore our requests?

We have a similar issue of kids on scooters and bikes but we are townhouses so the kids are racing down our very steep driveway to a couple of parking spaces at the bottom. There is a blind corner before the run down the hill and some residents drive too fast around it. Each house’s carport opens directly off the drive. The kids in question are about aged 10 and down (so not necessarily able to assess the risk in a situation).  The issue to us is not the noise, but the danger to the kids.

I have spoken to the parents on my own behalf to suggest what they are doing is not safe “Its’ really not safe what the kids are doing, we’d hate it if anything happened to them.  (Maybe if you are going to give your kids scooters without brakes, at least get them to them wear shoes!)“.

Then as Secretary of the EC, I have explained the same “Children playing on Common Property” by-law pointed out by Scotlandx , and pointed out the risks to the children again. (One parent from one family sometimes comes out to watch the kids now).

Then as Secretary, I started getting complaints and expressions of concern one by one from all the residents without children, or residents with children who aren’t allowed to do this, (or residents whose kids have now left home and were never allowed to do it). While we do have a few owners who make complaints just because a rule has been broken, I do believe that in this case the complaints are genuinely based on concern for the kids, and the anxiety of not wanting to be the one who accidentally hurts them. (People have even changed the way they park  to try and decrease the risk of the kids being hit). So I have passed on to the parents that there have been complaints, and that other residents would like the  parents to stop the kids doing it. Because the only by-law I could find to apply was no. 8 given above, I said that if they are going to let them do it, the kids need to be strictly and closely supervised by a parent at all times. (which it seems is too inconvenient to do).

Next I have sent out a letter via the Strata Manager, reminding all owners and residents of the by law that children need to be closely supervised and that children playing on the drive is dangerous. I also requested that drivers keep to our speed limit (5km). 

Most recently, I have spoken to the kids doing it myself directly, in case the message has not been passed on to them. (Oh! the sadness on a 6 year olds face when you tell them they cant ride their scooter on the concrete.)  I went and stood with them until they all responded and got off the drive to make sure they all got the message. 

The kids have now taken to riding down the sides of the drive, which I suppose is marginally better, but still not safe. I am not sure if they do that all the time or just when I am looking. 

I really resent having to talk to the kids myself, and having to speak to the parents more than once, as I don’t feel the secretary should have to be the “strata police”. But then I guess this whole website would be only half as big if our owners behaved appropriately out of a sense of responsibility to their communities.

Since then the matter has arisen at an EC meeting, but only in the context of peoples continued concern. We didn’t really know if we could/should do anything more. 

Have I/we made reasonable efforts to stop it? Is there a reasonable next step?

The sad thing is that the newly moved in child who has started the use of the drive in this way, has managed to get many kids out playing together, including kids who have never been outside their houses (or away from their computer games) to play before. It is building up a nice sense of community among the kids that would be terrible to see lost due to this issue. We have a separate playground area, but it would really only entertain younger kids. 

[bluehouse]

david2708,

I am not a lawyer and maybe someone will need to correct me but, as far as I understand, the memorandum is only about the reponsibility for maintaining things that already exist.

Special by-laws cover more than the future responsibilities to maintain the alteration/addition that they refer to.  They also cover things like the standard of work, who can carry out the work, the specifics of the work (eg.location, appearance, materials.), the impact on the strata scheme over the time of installation, and the need to have any mess created made good.

Even where you have a blanket special by-law, I assume you still need to have the specifics of each case passed by a vote.  For your example of a hot water system on common property, your fellow owners would still want the chance to vote on where you put it, what it will look like, how you get it installed, and the need to have it installed by a professional.  The memorandum has nothing to do with these details.

[bluehouse]

Please can someone answer “strats all” question about what happens if you cant get volunteers for the Strata Committee Roles?  I would love to know too.

We have never voted for the secretary, chairman or treasurer as its usually a difficult enough matter to get someone to grudgingly agree to do the job.  So I guess its a vote by default.

We do get volunteers for the committee but they are usually the few people who bothered to turn up to the Owners AGM, so there is no one else but them to vote. But they don’t seem to feel the need to actually participate in doing anything for the committee apart from voting on issues (or complaining).

What happens if I refuse to be secretary (and chairperson) next year and no one else will volunteer? Can we get the Strata Manager to do the job for us? 

It has been suggested to me by friends that the apathy about the whole thing may partly be due to the fact that people trust me and don’t feel the need to get involved themselves – but personally I cant understand why so many of the 18 owners in our scheme seem to have no interest in something so important to the management of such a major personal asset as their house!  

I agreed to be secretary because I felt I should take a turn with taking a role – the previous secretary had been doing the job for ever and was totally fed up – but I didn’t consider how hard it was going to be to give it up again……

[bluehouse]

Sir Humphrey, What you describe sounds logical, but our committee doesn’t have authority to approve an alteration that requires a special by-law.  And don’t have authority to approve on behalf of the Owners Corp. 

We have had trouble in the past with the committee approving something that we already had a general bylaw covering, on condition the requirements of the bylaw were met. The owner went ahead and built the addition and when the requirements weren’t met it became very difficult to deal with the situation and impossible to rectify without asking the owner to remove the addition (which the committee were unwilling to do). So both the committee and the Strata Manager are wary of getting caught like that again. I’m assuming that is one reason our Strata Manager has insisted we do it in this order.  It means we can ask for documents showing that they have met the DA, have a structural engineers report, have a builder with a license and insurance….. etc, before we give any approval. And what is required can’t be misunderstood.

At this point it looks like there will be legitimate reasons the owner has not addressed that will result in a vote against her by-law, so my concern that there will be votes against her for the wrong reasons is probably irrelevant.

Whichever order we do it, your suggestion of going back and forth a few times informally until the owner presents a proposal that is likely to be approved or approvable is a good one.  Unfortunately this owner is in a great hurry for some reason and is not listening to me about possible impacts on others properties that I can see, let alone asking any others. She is throwing herself into getting everything she needs for the DA and trying to get us to organise a date for a general meeting to vote on the by law (which is pointless at this stage).

The committee have to give her permission to apply for a DA so I suppose we will have a chance to tell her some concerns that those on the committee can see. And if, as they claim, Hornsby Council require a DA (as opposed to a CDC) partly to ensure the impacts on her neighbours are considered, that may force the owner to look into them before she gets to the special resolution vote for her bylaw, at an Extra General Meeting she will have had to pay the fees for. Otherwise she potentially will be turned down by an owners vote right at the end of the process after all the effort and cost.  

[bluehouse]

Thanks Jimmy, thats exactly what I wanted to know.  I wanted to make sure I was correct before saying that to the meeting. 

Her special by-law will cover most of those measures – provided she shows she is meeting all the clauses of her by-law.  

The only aspect not covered is the impact on others property. The reason Council gave for requiring a DA not just a Complying Development Certificate was that they need to check how the alteration will effect neighbouring properties. Since our properties are townhouses and the alteration is to the back wall and courtyard at the back of the house its possible those concerns will already have been addressed by the time we have to vote on it.  I’ll be interested to see how that goes in reality….

[bluehouse]

Madame Chair has said that the committee were aware repairs to the gutters will be needed in the next few years. But as part of assessing how urgently the work needs doing and the responsibility to do it, surely you also need to ask whether the existing state of the gutters is really causing the problem the owner is worried about at this point (which seems to be that it doesn’t look good to potential buyers). If the gutters were in good repair there is still the chance that they would be overflowing on some of the extremely wet days we’ved have lately. 

Recently the rain in Sydney has been very heavy and persistent for a long time. I (secretary) have had complaints about water leaking into garages, overflowing gutters and mould inside townhouses, to all of which the Strata Manager has said that the weather has been so unusual that it is not reasonable to expect otherwise, or expect Strata to do anything about it. (Happily we have had no leaks inside habitable rooms or I would be reacting fast!).  

It does seem a reasonable response to me. Or is it being negligent to not act further?

[bluehouse]

Lady Penelope (or anyone else), If compliance certificates are not required, and residents are able to remove the locks, how can Strata prove that they installed the locks if fines or liability for injury result down the track?  I think that is why our Strata Manager wants us to get a compliance certificate for all existing one new locks.

Also, when an owner or their tenant is uncooperative about providing access to install the locks (or termite inspections or other work for that matter) is it acceptable/reasonable to pass on the call out fee for the contractor for the extra visit, even though strata pays for the actual work?  If we give a lot of notice, and ask people to let us know if the date doesn’t suit so something else can be arranged for them, and then they still don’t stay home or leave keys for access on the day(s)….can we ask them to pay the extra? (there are only 18 of us).

For the pest inspections we tend to give up if people are uncooperative provided an inspection of their townhouse was done the previous year, but we can’t give up on installing the locks. This idea was suggested by one builder who came to quote as a measure to encourage compliance.

[bluehouse]

I don’t know what legal power it will have, but to cover this our Strata Manager has had prepared, and has asked her Strata Schemes to pass, a bylaw to the effect that once Strata has installed the locks or has had any existing locks tested, (so that Strata are certain to have met the requirements), it becomes the individual owners responsibility to maintain and keep them. And also the individual owners liability in the event of accident (or of a fine for non compliance) after that.

[bluehouse]

Before anyone gets too excited about the new “powers” to have council rangers police Strata parking spaces, check the relevant Strata Legislation and the Local Government Act it refers to. (Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 – Sect 112, Local Government Act 1993 – section 650A) There are also information sheets on the Office of Local Government website. (https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au)

It will depend on the nature of your parking problems whether these measures will be any help.  They won’t be of assistance for many of the parking issues in Strata Schemes.

As far as I understand:

The legislation is designed to address parking in complexes that are close to other facilities like sporting/entertainment venues or train stations, where the parking is often misused by outsiders for unreasonable amounts of time.

Strata scheme would need to make an arrangement with the local council to police the parking concerned. The local council are not obliged to do so, and in most cases will charge a fee. The council need to decide whether it will be in the public’s interest to do so. The strata scheme will also need to install signs and any other measures that the council require.  Any fines issued go to council.

I have read nothing to suggest it would be a matter of Strata members reporting parking infringements to council rangers – the rangers will simply add your strata parking to their normal duties to detect parking infringements (which in our area will mean they would be policed far less than the frequency with which parking problems arise).  

The aspects that can be policed are:

1. Misuse of disabled or emergency parking

2. Limited hour parking (eg. if the parking is available only in daylight hours)

3. Limited period parking (e.g.. 1 hour parking).  This has to be in line with similar period restrictions elsewhere.

4. In some cases prevention of access to other parking or buildings.

Most other parking infringements that irritate in Strata Schemes, such as the  misuse of visitor parking by residents, and the use of visitor parking by outsiders, are not possible to be policed by rangers. In fact your parking effectively becomes part of council parking stock and can be used by anyone who meets the hour and period restrictions above. And residents will have the same restrictions placed on them as outsiders (for common or visitor parking spaces, not one designated to your lot).

Strata schemes would still be free to have other restrictions and bylaws with respect to parking, but they can’t be policed in this manner. The existing measures for managing Strata ByLaw infringements need to be followed for those matters. (i.e. notice to comply etc).

Lastly, the Owners Corporation have to pass any agreement with council by special resolution (more than 75% of the vote). In our scheme we would have trouble passing that by the time we subtract the number of owners who would prefer to continue to misuse common property and those who don’t want the extra expense of policing it.

I am not a lawyer, just a Committee secretary who did some research before the conflict between some owners got any more heated. If i am wrong or mistaken about this please point it out. 

[bluehouse]

Kiwipaul

I’m only referring to NSW as that is all I have read about.

My understanding is that continuous lines, whether thick or thin, on a Strata Floor plan represent some kind of boundary – not necessarily the boundary of the lot.

The boundaries will define the sides of a space, and a lot can consist of more than one space.  There will be information on the plan other than the lines which will tell you that.

I assume you are referring to the link https://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/__da….._Facts.pdf#sthash.6K3UyMBw.dpuf

In diagram 8, which is a floor plan in a Strata Plan, this information is indicated by 

• Each part is marked with the lot number it belongs to (“PT1”, “PT2” or nothing where it is common property)
• A vinculum (symbol like a stretched out “S”) across a wall that indicates both sides of the line form part of the lot property even though the wall in between is common property.
• On each part of the lot, there is an area measurement written in brackets. Under the measurement for the house area, there is a total area for the whole lot. So you can check you have noticed all the parts of the lot by making sure the total area matches the sum of the others.

There may also be notes on the plan that clarify the matter as well.

Not marked on the plan is Structural Cubic space inside your house/unit that is assumed to be common property unless otherwise specified.  We only know its there because that is the convention.  (more about structural cubic space here https://rgdirections.lpi.nsw.gov.au/faqs/strata_scheme/structural_cubic_space)

Diagram 7 is a Location plan.  Not all SP in NSW have them – I don’t know about QLD.  This plan is used to define the boundaries of the parcel belonging to the strata scheme, not boundaries of lots.  The lot boundaries are there, but you will note there are no measurement on them so they aren’t actually defining them.  

I hope this helps your understanding.

[bluehouse]

Thanks Whale

Yeah.  I thought it was safe to assume that the walls that are physically common, or effect anyone else, are common, regardless of the line.

The shoe box analogy is good – but in the case of 2 storey townhouses gets complicated because the floor between storeys is common, as is the stairs so its harder to imagine.

Your suggestion about informing the EC or OC about any alterations regardless if they need approval or which kind of approval, seems to me to be only good neighbourly behaviour in the case that they don’t and the legal thing to do if they do.  But it seems that once things are mentioned at a meeting no one can decide what to do and tend to postpone a decision. So if one wants to continue being polite or legal one then needs to keep asking to have the matter on the next agenda and wait…a lot.

I was hoping that a clear strata plan would be able to be used as a guide to which internal walls require OC approval to touch, and which not. I hadn’t considered your point that even things within the owners airspace could effect others because of noise, obstruction during works etc. But even if the question could be narrowed down to being about those issues (and not about what is common property) it would be a clarification and aid in helping get decisions made.

But it is not to be.

Which leads me to another question about how to decide what kind of approval is needed for different alterations.  But I will start another thread rather than branch off, so don’t answer here.

[bluehouse]

Yes, I’m referring to the registered Strata Plans.  

If anyone is interested these are the 3 best resources explaining how to interpret them that I’ve found.  All NSW but hopefully still helpful.

https://nsw.stratacommunity.org.au/strata-community/free-online-executive-committee-training/  (you’ll need to register and go to the “Interpreting Strata Plans” module)

https://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/143078/Strata_Plans_Fast_Facts.pdf

https://www.bannermans.com.au/articles/strata-and-development/213-what-do-i-own-and-what-is-common-property

I rang the Land and Property Information Service (what used to be NSW Department of Lands) for help and the advisor there pulled up the plans and ended up saying that they were unclear too.  The fact that they don’t match the outline of the house but we have to follow them, makes things some things very difficult, which is why he gave me the surveyors number.  But even if I can contact the surveyor I’m not sure what can be done anyway, since the plans were registered.

The biggest problem is that the house has a wall running down the middle, parallel to the common side walls.  On the second storey the wall down the middle is marked as a common wall, but the outer wall that is physically common with the house next door is not present at all.  We can reasonably guess that the surveyor meant to put a bold line on the wall dividing the houses and mistook the internal wall for that one (14 times). Anyone looking at even just the front facade would realise the SP doesn’t add up, so maybe the liquid lunch theory applies here too.

So I guess I have to assume that the wall that divides me from next door (not marked at all on that floor) and the internal one (marked with a thick line) are both common walls for the purposes of getting permission from the OC for alterations, and are both mine for the purposes of getting the OC to pay for repairs……

[bluehouse]

Thanks Whale

It seems to me that your advice is the right approach and it is essentially the same advice as Jimmy gave, in the sense that the new owner is informed that the alterations are not approved, and has the chance to insist something is done, either by the old owner rectifying the situation, or by the alteration of sale price so that the new owner has the resources to do so themselves.

I was only hoping to use the advice made by mini to help me convince the EC and SM that there is some urgency to the matter – because the usual model of indecision and procrastination about actions to take could well mean the settlement period ends and the responsibility for the alterations passes to the OC.  I certainly wasn’t considering legal action.

The other problem I have is that the EC rely on the SMs advice above anything else, and the SM is not responding to my concerns other than to say she is forwarding my emails to the EC.  So we are doing a silly dance where I express my concerns, she refers it to the EC (because quite rightly they should give her instruction not me – except that I wasn’t trying to instruct her) but the EC don’t have the information to decide what to do or what to instruct her.  The fact that I was expressing my concerns in order to collect information from her to help out the very busy members of the EC makes it all the more ludicrous.

So in effect I can’t see how i have any ability to effect what action is taken (i think I explained I am not on the EC) because the SM won’t respond to me (or give the EC the answers to the questions I asked), and the EC only want to do what she says.  I have achieved something in getting the issue and the need for action raised at all.  The fact that your advice does not seem to be the course the SM has chosen to take concerns and disturbs me but in the real world situation it seems beyond me to influence it.

Sometimes you have to choose your battles, and at this point I think I have to leave this one and hope it will somehow muddle on to the right outcome, even if not by the right means.  

Now I need to move on to be annoyingly pedantic about the need to inform all the owners that meetings are taking place and distribute agendas before them.  (I won’t be surprised if the fact that the non-resident previous owner has not been informed about meetings (except AGMs) for who know how long, will arise to muddy the waters of this problem).

Even though I feel I cant do anything about this issue for now I am still interested in more comment on the question – its all educational and may equip me (or others) to know how to manage such situations in the future.

[bluehouse]

Thanks Mini

I did wonder about that.  I have read that the responsibility for unauthorised alterations effectively passes to the OC at change of ownership, unless there is a bylaw or permission letter stating the owner of the lot has responsibility. Is that right?

Can you tell me any simple online references I could use to support me if I try to explain this? I understand the idea of case law, but it may not be the simplest way to explain it at the meeting.  At the rate decisions are made and actions decided on, the settlement period may be over before anything gets followed through unless I can explain there is a deadline.

I seem to have caused the SM to do something – she says she will ring the owner and have her (the SMs) contractors have a look at the renovations to determine if they are “legal”…..I do not feel confident that either action is in line with the advice from Whale and Jimmy or other things I’ve read……. but its something.

Ever since I bought my place, time the issue of what owners can and can’t do without OC approval is discussed, (whether at meetings or in neighbourly chats), these unapproved alterations to the laundry of this lot come up…..with much fretting on the part of other owners and dire predictions of disastrous consequences and indignant statements that “we can make him take it out!”.  I found reference to it being referred to the SM for advice in the minutes of the EC in 2011!  Yet nothing happens and no one follows up….  So now because there is a deadline I made a pest of myself to the SM and guess I have to be satisfied that something is happening, even if its not how i would like to see it happen.

[bluehouse]

Hi Jimmy

I’ve just reread my last two entries and they are too long and convoluted and wandering off the topic so I’d like to remove and alter them.

But I can’t work out how to edit (they are still awaiting moderation so isn’t this still possible?)

Help!

[Author]

Replies