Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
BA777 said:
As maybe slightly half of the tenants are renters, and he’s always snooping around, i dunno how many of them buy into his words. But i heard he does not get along with a tenant or two.
I am not hopeful of the Strata company doing anything, but what help does going to NCAT do?”
Hi bah777, Jimmy’s idea of sitting down with the guy is good advice. Whatever you do you have to be able to live with it and stress is never good. The guy may respond and back off after either a friendly talk or a stern warning (bullies often do) but are you comfortable doing either?
I didn’t mean you should go to NCAT. What I said was “build a case” keep things eg notes, records of calls or conversations with others. If others, be they tenants or owners, have issues with this guy try to get them to complain or put it in writing. I note that you have spoken to someone who had her uncle give him a stern warning, if nothing else talking to others might make you realise that it isn’t just you that this guy is picking on.
In all probability the issue won’t escalate or proceed to NCAT but it would be a shame if it did and you didn’t keep a record of things supporting your views.
bah777, you need to build a case.
Things like the “words written on my notice”, should be located and kept. Make records as to times, dates and content of conversations etc. Get witnesses to back you as to what was said etc. Eg if he has spoken to your contractor get a statement from the contractor.
Speak to others in your complex, those “he had tried to mislead all residents of the building that it was cancelled because he hates the strata company and the manager by pasting notices in the building that it was cancelled ” and have this as backup should there ever be a confrontation or need to present your case to the OC or EC.
As you talk to others and gather evidence of his ways you will achieve two things. One, you won’t feel so isolated or alone as you realise he has treated others the same intimidating way. Two you will have evidence should a case ever proceed either to NCAT, the OC or strata management company.
Missy is spot on in saying that “they maybe changing you hundreds of dollars for something that takes minutes.”
Our strata has a small amount of interest so we must lodge a tax return. For tax purposes we are a company and need to lodge by the following January (I think). I prepare and lodge our strata’s return. Besides the front page I only really have to fill out 1 label in the return.
As for the need to lodge returns at all, from my knowledge Missy is also correct.
I know of a few stratas who put their money in non interest accounts on the basis that while the strata may earn $200 in interest accountants charge $250 to prepare and lodge a return!
The only other point I would note is that income includes charges to outsiders eg prospective purchasers for inspection of book etc.
jc, I think Whale covered it all.
10 years ago, our strata moved from finding our own insurance and handling our own claims to engaging an insurance broker. The important thing is that we pay no more for our policy. We got quotes from 3 insurance companies to ensure this.
The broker handles and processes all our claims (one 1 in 8 years) so we consider it well worthwhile.
I can’t see the logic of a commission to the Strata Manager as they appear to add no value but the important thing is the amount the strata pays and how much work it has to do.
I won’t say who our insurance broker is, maybe Jimmy has one associated with this site who he has checked out.
Assuming the roof cavity is common property an inspection of the cavity should show if down lights are there.
Technically and legally your views are probably correct. At the moment it appears the owner is getting his way by bluster and harvesting proxies. Because the paving was laid before his time I can understand his anger. He obviously thought he brought the paving when he purchased.
The owner should be allowed the opportunity to put his views and reasoning. I had a similar issue regarding parking and while technically and legally I was wrong after putting my views to the OC it was accepted that in practical terms ‘there was no nuisance’ nor was ‘anyone else denied the use of common property’.
My view is that to make any decision to overturn his ‘garden paving’ the OC needs to ensure certain processes are gone thru and are transparent. The widely used legal term is “due process” and the OC needs to make sure he is afforded this.
I don’t think he can be asked to step down. By its very nature all EC members have some interest in decisions. At very best a recommendation could be put to the OC that his votes not be counted on this issue (but that needs a vote too imo).
The EC or OC does need to vote on the removal of the paving. If it is so obvious that the paving has to go take it to a vote either an AGM or otherwise and explain the reasons.
Lobby other like minded owners prior to any vote, explain why the paving should go and how the legislation etc prohibits the paving from being there.
I looked at this issue for our strata a couple of years ago. My findings, as best as I remember, were:
Insurance: as long as the strata doesn’t make payments over a certain threshold a year (back then it was around $7,500) there is no need to have a workers compensation policy. As for other insurance as long as the strata did not know and ignore safety issues the general strata insurance should cover anything else.
Payment to the owner: as long as payment is made only after work is done and is not excessive for the work done payment is ok. I think payment needed to be minuted, declared and ratified at the next held AGM.
Hi Dan, sorry, some questions I didn’t respond to:
“Am I allowed to take photos of the children on our driveways …?”. As it is common property my view is you should be! If need be use a photo editor to hide the children’s faces. Usually even without faces, clothing and other features are enough for those who know them to know who the pictures are of.
If it was me I would just say you were taking pictures of the illegally parked cars. Or have something in the photo that you wanted to take a picture of.
“Can you remain anonymous?” Of course but it lessens the need for the EC to do anything and also the likelihood they will.
I don’t see a practical solution to your problem without it getting VERY messy and emotional.
Hi Dan, as no one has answered I will put my bit in. I am hesitant as I remember my childhood and kicking footballs and playing hopscotch on driveways. Children are always going to be children.
In my view there are lots of liability issues here. Our strata hasn’t got any special bylaws and by default adopt the model ones in the legislation. I don’t know what bylaws your strata has but at https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/sch1.html
at bylaw 7 it says:
“7 Children playing on common property in building
An owner or occupier of a lot must not permit any child of whom the owner or occupier has control to play on common property within the building or, unless accompanied by an adult exercising effective control, to be or to remain on common property comprising a laundry, car parking area or other area of possible danger or hazard to children.”
If there were to be an accident the OC would be held to be liable (to what extent I am not sure). If they warn the owner/occupier allowing it to happen their liability would lessened.
I would find out what bylaws apply to your strata and forward a copy of the relevant bits to the OC. Try a google search on NSW strata Owners Corporation and children on driveways and see what else you can find.
You are correct, but in the competitive world of the provision of professional services that is all the the basic fee is for. If you want services above this these are additional and are charged for accordingly.
We considered hiring a professional manager a few years ago and the decision boiled down to this: Are the owners willing to pay an extra $500 ($2,500 in total) each per year for someone to do the administrative things we can do ourselves? The owners decided that the $2,500 was better spent on maintenance/repairs of common property etc. Having said ‘the owners decided’ it is often frustrating to get owners to take on even the simplest strata task UNLESS it directly affects there unit.
I can see why stratas hire professional managers but hiring one only results in the admin stuff being less personal. Hiring a manager doesn’t get the buildings any better looked after or the maintenance any better performed.
We are a small self managed strata. My experience is that stratas hire a professional manager because no one wants to be responsible for the administrative things. In our strata this was:
-filing and keeping the paperwork. All we have is a plastic tub and papers get thrown in the tub after they are actioned. No one wanted to have the tub at their place; and
-issuing notices for fees and following up non or late payers. We give all owners access to our bank accounts so everything is transparent but most are reluctant to contact other owners re money.
Your recourse would be to take them to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The dept of fair trading web site should be able to help also. Here is a link that may help https://www.choice.com.au/money/property/renting/articles/rental-rights-you-didnt-know-you-had
I once took a case like yours to the NCAT. I think a lot of real estate agents do this to impress their landlords and because they feel tenants are often too intimidated. Often agents (not all) try this on, it is a quick way for them to make a few extra dollars. You don’t need a lawyer before the NCAT, you can represent yourself. I did and I have seen others do it and win.
5 years is a pretty long tenancy. The items you describe would appear to fall within the definition of fair wear and tear. The water marks under the sink could be from a leak that the landlord should have had fixed anyway.
If you go to the NCAT. You need to gather/list as much evidence as possible in your favour. The evidence will include, the photos, the length of your tenancy, and details of the state of the property during your tenancy. Do you have much paperwork relating to your tenancy? If so going thru it for things like proving there has been no spend on repairs/maintenance, past condition reports (photos? Especially, if the past condition reports are all good and this one was bad it might help. Even if you can’t find much evidence the real estate should have it. The agent not give it to you but put a formal request to the tribunal to ask that they provide it.
bim, this may not be an answer to your exact question.
I think the only course of action open to you is to make sure the official record (be they the minutes of the following AGM or executive notes) show your reasons for not wanting to accept the minutes as a True account of what went on.
I don’t know anything about ‘standard practice’ etc. What I can say is that when we get our 5 yearly valuation the valuer doesn’t ask for and is not given anything except access to one of the units.
We are a small self managed Strata.
@JimmyT said:
@Cosmo said:To be valid any by law would have to be enacted before or at the same time (contemporaneously) as the installation. Owner’s who installed whirlybirds and could convince a tribunal that at the time of installation they were not advised of or aware of the whirlybird’s maintenance being their responsibility would get a ruling in their favour.
Precedence has nothing to do with it. If a previous EC was incompetent, then you can’t expect subsequent ECs to be stuck with having to repeat erroneous actions or lack of actions.
If the person who installed the first whirlybird (Clothes dryer??) on common property without permission still owns the property, then they should be subject to the same rules.
If the original installer has since sold, that installation is now part of common property.
The person installing the new dryer still has to abide by strata law (rather than by-laws, in this case) which say that you can’t change common property without permission. Claims of precedence won’t fly. The Owner’s Corp can order him to remove the dryer or accept their terms for keeping it.
As for the first dryer, if its current owner won’t accept responsibility for it under the same terms as the other (new) guy then they can just insist that the original dryer be removed.
The law is the law. Precedence counts for little and even less if there is a strata law breach involved.
Regarding Jimmy’s quote of my response … upon reflection I have changed my view. He is correct and me wrong *guilty smile*.
My statement re the by law having to be passed “at the same time” as the installation should say that if the owner who did the installation still owns the property.
Otherwise you would have the impractical and absurd situation where a current owner could avoid responsibility by hiding changes to common property.