[bpositive]

1) Impose immediate penalties and Jail terms on EC members and strata managers for fraud, dipping into strata money directly or indirectly. (that will scare the shit out of most of these corrupt semi-retired pensioners)

2) Impose a $10,000 fine for breach of bylaws (no exceptions)

3) Streamline the law so it is easy to understand and follow.

[bpositive]

This is interesting:

 If EC members are not made aware of an OH&S issue (in writing or verbal) then they are not liable for prosecution. But if they are made aware and do nothing then there is a possibility to be sued for any damages. ( I think)

[bpositive]

Gilgal1 said:

Hi – I’d like to find out what you think is the best approach for getting rid of unused common property by selling or leasing it to interested unit owners.

You may need to get unanimous approval from all owners since each and every owner has a 1/n interest in the common property.

[bpositive]

struggler said:

Don't you need permission to put up a fence from council?  We had an owner who tried to build a retaining wall around common property (without permission from anyone).  Investigations found that the  wall that this owner was proposing needed council approval (let alone strata). 

If this fence is left to stand without approval or exclusive use by law then the strata would be responsible for it should it fall into disrepair, or fall onto someone!

Nope. Council is only bothered if it is an external wall higher that 6m. Council laws differ from place to place. Yes I assume that the strata is reponsible. Nobody wants bylaws here.

[bpositive]

random said:

So the CTTT said the fence should stay? Because I would think the fence (if built without permission) would be the issue that could be rectified (by removing the fence).

Haha. When I complained to mediation – they quickly held a EGM got approval from the exec committee and passed a special resolution. No s31, no bylaws, no consent. If you have the majority you can do anything! As matters stand even today there are no bylaws. Additions by owners to common property have to be first approved. Not the other way round. That is the law. But CTTT decided thru adjudication and hearing that the fence stays for practical reasons. It is now a safety fence – what a joke!

Aside from that (if the fence was approved, or if the CTTT said it has to stay), as far as I know anyone can enjoy the common property (i.e. by sitting on it) as long as it doesn’t interfere with other users enjoying it. I.e. if he was using that area to make a lot of noise would be different to sitting quietly minding his own business.

 

And is he leaving the chair out there, or taking it with him? Because if he was leaving an item unattended on common property which technically (forgetting about the fence) could cause a hazard if someone tripped over it in the dark, I would think that changes the issue again than if he’s only taking his chair out when he wants to sit and relax (hopefully not causing a hazard).

 This is where the problem is if I sit there he would compaint of noise.

Clearly I’m no help, just find it an interesting situation…

Yes when the same person is put in charge of the maintenance of the building – there is really little you can do. I though maintenance of buildings is done by a team with proper equipment and proper OHS equipment not by one person with a broom and a pair and a rickety weed mower! It is a very interesting situation.

[bpositive]

I fully emphathise with you. We had an owner build a fence without even a motion (forget bylaws!). Not just that he also put a gate in his balcony railing! We took the matter to adjudicator, hearing but lost. Why? because the executive committee covered up by holding a meeeting AFTER the fence was added. This is strictly not allowed especially for additions. The CTTT ruled that the fence adds to the security of the building and the gate inserted in his balcony to access the now “not so common property” is like adding a door to your house! Gee even my kindergarten daughter can see this is wrong.

[bpositive]

This leads me to ask another question. I have been twice denied voting rights even though I had a cheque with me at the time of the meeting.

[bpositive]

The issue is, where are the hedges? 

The lot owner is not entitled to plant hedges on common property unless written approval of the owners corporation is first obtained. This is because planting hedges could be regarded as carrying out works involving common property.

There is also the possibility that the owner has committed the tort of nuisance, although further details would be required before further advice on this can be provided,

The hedges are on common property creating a “private enclosure”. The complication is that the owner also does the maintenance of the strata block including gardens – so he can do what he likes..  

[bpositive]

Same problem here as I had to sit in darkness and wait for the electricity company to reset the switch. Add to that the cost!

[bpositive]

Sorry for not following the thread I started. What is interesting is that through some hairy fairy arrangement an Owner is doing the maintenance of the common property. And would it surprise anyone that the best maintained part of the common property is the area adjoining this owner! (I cannot prove it but I am sure some other owners are making money by supporting him. Anyway that is besides the point.)

 

I see several unit blocks around me – all of them are regularly serviced (fortnight, month at most). Over here I have seen creepers grow upto 40 feet. So can the owners corp say we only care about the front and save money by not looking after the back?

 

About this owner saving money is also questionable as I got a professional strata cleaning agent who has quoted for maintaining the whole area for LESS than what this owner is charging!!!

 

About making this area exclusive – out of question I live on the first floor!

 

About improving this area myself – It will take me at least $2000 to have the weeds removed, hedges properly cut, leaves and dead bushes removed.

 

Is there a tangible argument here that the rear of the building should be as well maintained as the front?

[Author]

Replies