Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Jimmy re:
“I have found this, where the new owner of a unit was ordered to remove an unapproved staircase installed by a previous owner.”
What a fascinating case! The decision gives hope to duped OCs everywhere.
Hi Paddy, re “The issue appears to be one of common sense”. All strata living owners and OCs rely upon informal agreements as much as formal or legal agreements to find the practical rules that work for their property.
I find that when it comes to the law there is NO common sense. If there is to be common sense applied it is up to the OC. Although what you may see as common sense others may see as benefiting at the expense of other owners.That is why I believe searching for a resolution thru bylaws or a ruling will only get you one of the resolutions that scotlandx or Whale has alluded to.
Our strata plan has a similar issue which I have commented on previously. Most here haven’t agreed with our resolution. In short some our issue is: some owners have a common property area directly outside their garage. This area can only be used by the relevant owners and them using it does not (in a practical sense) cause others a nuisance or deprive anyone else of the use of common property.
The only reason those owners have been tolerated to use the common property area directly outside their garages is that they could show that because of the lack of common parking and visitor parking areas there was a benefit to all owners.
Depending upon the personalities and unique circumstances of your strata unless you can draw up convincing arguments the avenues outlined by scotlandx or Whale are the only way to go.
So I guess I am asking or recommending, can you draw convincing arguments why you shouldn’t strictly enforce the law?
Julie,
“I guess I am one of those difficult owners.” not at all! You sound reasonable and your issues, in the main, correctly handled by you.
The original post did not go into the content and validity of their grievance and the responses were drafted accordingly.
Anyway that is what I felt after reading all posts.
@magpie said:
What do you do in the case of a very difficult owner/investor. I have been on the committee for a very small block of units for years. We struggle to get work done as our building shifts from owner occupiers to investors. We now face a very difficult new owner/investor who bombards the manager, committee and other owners with emails and threats. Long emails covering many issues and grievances may arrive on Friday afternoon but before you can respond there is a new long email on Monday. To draft a considered response can consume hours then you then receive a hostile response for your trouble. More allegations, more threats… I am beginning to think that anyone is totally mad to be an owner occupier in a small (or any!) building. You are especially mad if you are a committee member and work very very hard on behalf of investors who do not even attend meetings or offer support at all. Any advice?magipie, don’t know if this helps or not but I experienced a vaguely similar situation with an OC I was previously involved with. Without knowing the content and validity of each grievance I suggest a email reply including wording along the following lines:
“Thankyou for you email of XXXXX. It is always good when people take and interest in our commonly shared property. As you probably realise participation in the Executive Committee and work done for the OC is all done on a voluntary non paid basis. So for any issue/suggestion received it needs to be decided what needs to be done and who will do it.
While your email contain allegations/grievances it is not clear what specific course of action would result in their resolution. For each suggestion, it is therefore important that suggestions to the OC/EC outline in a concise manner the following:
1. The exact nature of the problem/issue;
2. Your proposed resolution;
3. The cost of any proposed resolution and from whom the those costs are to be obtained; and
4. The person you recommend implement the solution. Eg are you willing to oversee and implement the solution?
Thankyou”
Anyway good luck
Whale, what a well thought out and articulated answer!
I agree with and love the statement “your Client has access – just not by the means that he/she prefers!” which goes to the heart of the matter.
@fred22 said:
We are considering appointing a tenant representative to our Ex Com. Has any own experience of this? Are there things that we should be aware of? Any tips about appointing such and has anyone had a problem with this?fred22
Hi Fred22, our complex considered this issue a number of years ago. We decided against it on the basis of things may be discussed which go to the ‘ liability’ of owners that are best discussed and decided solely by owners.
It was argued that ‘if it goes to the liability of owners’ the OC should fix whatever the problem is. In practice it is not so simple. Society is becoming ever more litigious and while I am sure there are proper precautions that can be applied it is something to be aware of.
Our OC/EC realised that its position may have appeared unreasonable to some but the interests of owners and tenants don’t always align.
Anyway just something to think on.
Just to reinforce Whale’s excellent replies, From my experience the more work and communication you put in with like minded Owners before any formal meeting the better the goal of putting the EC in place will be achieved!
I reread my post and realised I didn’t directly answer the question, ie
is “the OC is obliged to change the hight of the balcony balustrade, because one of the owners is saying that the hight doesn’t comply with the building code”?
Answer: no as long as the balustrade met the relevant building codes when the balustrade was constructed. The exception being if there has been ‘rectification or repair’ work done on them in which case the balustrade would have to meet the codes current at that time.
It sounds like the advice you got 5 years ago and the 2009 OHS report (depending upon who they were from) would indicate that the relevant codes were met.
Hi Alinka,
There are two issues for the OC to consider here:
1. What was the building code when the balustrade was constructed (probably when the building was constructed)?
2. Has there been any “rectification or renovation” work done that has affected the balustrades and what where the building codes at the date the “rectification or renovation” work was done?
In my opinion, the strata needs to ensure that the balustrade on the buildings they manage met the relevant building codes at the time of their construction.
However, when a balustrade has rectification or renovation work done to it, such an act triggers the need to comply with the Building Code current at that time.
So as long as there have been no “rectification or renovation ” the OC is probably ok legally. But in terms of just common sense and wanting to prevent accidents it is probably something the OC should look at asap. Some of the older balustrades are hazards even if they do comply with the requirements.
There are a lot of court cases and information on this and I am sure if you do a relevant google search it will show them.
Hi Jeff,
You may have this all covered but the OC needs to understand the possible consequences of insuring at a value other than what is determined by the valuer. This will be specific to the policy with the insurer but according to my understanding of the way it works either “under insuring” or “over insuring” can result in the OC being out of pocket. You need someone to understand your OC’s specific policy contract.
You take out insurance for the building you have not the building you think you should have. An insurance policy is usually for the property where it is, as it is and unless there is some “legal or other” requirement that it not be rebuilt ‘where it is and as it is’ the insurance company may not cover you. As your OC know of these “legal or other” requirements they are something the insurance needs to be made aware of and accept.
You state “our strata property would never been rebuilt the way it is now” and that seems to be one of the arguments the OC is adopting for picking a valuation other than that of the valuer’s. Does the insurance company know and accept that the “strata property would never been rebuilt the way it is now”?
From what you have stated I think the Strata Manager is trying to do the right thing by the OC. If the OC under insurers and there is a total loss the insurance company would be well within its rights to pay less than the agreed under insured value. Your OC has to make sure it has made full disclosure to your insurance company that in the event of total loss the OC intends to build different structures at a different cost, this is so the insurance company can factor this in to the premium it charges.
As as really rough example, if you under insured for only $8,270,000 (ie approx 82% of $10,046,400) and the building suffered a total loss the insurance company would probably be entitled to, at best, pay you only $6,781,400 (ie 82% of $8,270,000). In the worst case the insurance company might be entitled to pay you less than that arguing that the OC didn’t make a proper disclosure.
The above is all my opinion, but the OC needs to really be sure of the consequences of what it is doing and its obligation to disclose all relevant facts to the insurance company.
I have never sought access or copies for a SP documents but have requested other documents where a charge has applied. I have done this on three occasions. On each occasion I forwarded a cheque for an amount to cover what I estimated it would cost and told the bodies that if it cost more or less they should contact me for the additional monies or refund me as was appropriate.
Depending upon how many units in your SP and the systems used to record the information you want, charges will vary I guess. If they are going to charge more you should ask for details of how that charge is made up. Asking them for details of how a charge is made up also puts them on notice that they can’t just pull a figure out of the air and the makeup would help if you disputed anything.
pmayes, be sure of your responsibilities if leaving it in your space and reporting it to the police.
I have heard that if you report it while it is still in your space you can be held to be responsible for disposing it and if you tow it on to the street AFTER reporting it you can be charged with dumping.
Felix, you are up against it!
Can one challenge? Of course but in my view there is a limit to what you can achieve. You probably won’t get them amended but depending upon the importance having your challenge on record may be worthwhile.
The fact that you want to challenge would indicate that the minutes do ‘someone’ damage or wrong. That ‘someone’ has an interest in having the minutes challenged. If there is ‘someone else’ who has an equal interest in not having the minutes amended then it is a fight that you probably can’t win. This is because the minutes have been adopted and voted on (and are a few years old).