Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Mostly correct. Though the date the notice is sent or received has no bearing on when interest becomes due, in fact there is no requirement to send a notice out. It is good practice however for this to be done in advance of the due date to remind owners of their obligation to pay. If the levies are not paid within thirty days of the due date, then interest is chargeable at the rate of 10% per annum, calculated from the due date till date of payment.
I’d make a couple of points here – the Chairman/Treasurer doesn’t have any special privileges in making up the rules as he goes along. Are there any other members of the Exec Committee? In any case the OC should be taking back control from this person. Ordinary keys can be easily copied and I’d tend to agree with the technician rather than the Chairman/Treasurer.
From what you say, the remote access would have been provided as an integral part of the common property. Under Strata Law the OC has an obligation to maintain that common property (in working order). So the Chairman/Treasurers decision to deactivate that part of the door mechanism without putting it to a general meeting would in fact be unlawful.
You would be hard pressed to get a special by-law approved on the basis that in a six unit block you normally need a special resolution to be passed by all remaining owners, no doubt the “offending” owner wouldn’t support it. The situation becomes worse for you if a poll were to be demanded, if the other units had a greater unit entitlement value than yours. Also I don’t believe that you would get much support in a tribunal over a tree blocking your view, even though views are highly sought after and contribute to the value of your unit.
What would concern me is that the trees may have been placed without regard to the load bearing capacity of the balcony. They could be quite heavy when fully grown (including weight of soil, the pot containing it and the tree itself).
There have been many well publicised cases of balcony collapse in recent years, many of these involved heavy loadings though usually of people, and deterioiation of the balcony through corrosion. Might be better to pursue those aspects through Fair Trading and possibly the Tribunal, safety issues should elicit a more sympathetic hearing.
Fine to post here. It’s a bit difficult from the info you have provided to give an answer, there seems to be a standard fee imposed by either the Strata Manager or the OC administering your block. A one size fits all approach rather than you having to pay the actual costs incurred in your application. Depending on the scope of the works you are applying for (your interpretation of “small” may differ to others) the $500 fee imposed may indeed be a bargain, especially if engineering reports have to be assessed, or a special by-law has to be drawn up, a meeting of all owners convened, then provided the by-law is passed by special resolution, then registered at the LPI. With a large block of 160 units, postage and photocopying alone would be a substantial figure.
So it really gets down to whether you already have in place a general bylaw which covers the scope of your works, and the impact which they may have on the building and your neighbours.
I’m not sure what the sign means regarding trade parking, is there any bylaw which has authorised the sign?, If not it really has no effect on the legaility of anyone parking there. In any case, bylaws cannot be enforced against anyone other than residents of the complex.
I sympathise that it is not always possible to inform EC when any tradesperson may need to attend your unit, you may have for example an urgent plumbing or electrical problem which needs attention, and the tradesperson needs to park in a convenient location for access to work tools etc.
It should be perfectly obvious that the person there had a legitimate reason for parking in that spot, but some overzealous committee member has taken it upon themselves to throw their weight around. If they have caused damage to the vehicle by stickering it then the tradesperson concerned could rightfully seek compensation for the damage caused.
I think it would be quite appropriate for you to raise the foregoing matters with the EC and advise them that the signage needs to be clarified and that they may be held liable for damage caused to a vehicle by stickering it, and you as a member of the OC will not accept liability for any inappropriate conduct.
The Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 is silent on this matter. Lannock’s state on their website that they may in certain circumstances advance a loan on the request of the Executive Committee or Strata Manager. Two things are quite clear though, you need to have adequate insurance maintained under the provisions of the Act, and it’s the OC at a general meeting of all owners which has to set the levy, that cannot be done by an EC or Strata Manager.
Generally loans are one option when the sinking fund balance is insufficient to provide for necessary maintenance. The other way to pay is of course by special levy. In the case of your example though, I would advise calling an EGM to reassess the admin fund levy contributions requirements for the current year. If you have some money in your sinking fund, that could be borrowed to pay the insurance premium, but the Act requires that such temporary borrowing be paid back within three months to the appropriate fund.
Your strata manager seems a little sympathetic to the miscreants, who are obviously doing things for their convenience at the expense of other residents.
Depending upon what delegation she has, it may be necessary for the Executive Committee to meet and agree to a Notice to Comply with a By-law to be issued against Kellys.
This is the first step in taking the matter further to take action in the Tribunal.
The procedure is here: http://www.flatchat.com.au/by-laws-and-breaches-the-options/
I wonder whether it would possible to install a bollard or similar obstruction to physically prevent cars parking in those critical spots.
Your concerns are justified. Most likely you will find you have voluntary workers insurance, but the amount claimable will be very limited against that part of the policy. Ladders are a great concern, people falling off ladders can cause debilitating injuries or worse. There is too much risk involved for anyone who volunteers, and ambulance chasing lawyers could soon be on the scene in the event of an accident. It is my strong view that adequate funding through levies should be maintained so that the property is kept in good order and condition. You’ll find that working bees are attended by the same few people, many of whom may be limited in their abilities, whilst those most able to afford the cost sit back and do nothing, benefitting from the efforts of their fellow owners. Sounds like a classic case of insufficient funds provided in the sinking fund for foreseeable and necessary ongoing maintenance. So for a quality job go for a reputable painter carrying insurance, if the funds aren’t there it may be necessary to raise a special levy or borrow funds.
Good advice from tharra. There is a coronial inquest being held this week involving a unit at Bankstown where allegedly such a wall was constructed and impeded escape from the building, resulting in the death of a young woman and serious injuries to another. It will be interesting to see the Coroner’s findings and recommendations in this matter.
The only thing I could suggest is that you express your concerns to the local council. Unfortunately there are no hard and fast rules on how many people can be accommodated in one building, and there is little if any consistency between our local government bodies in how well they address overcrowding issues. With less affordability of housing in our major cities (despite political denials!) unfortunately this situation of cramming more people into buildings is more prevalent, affecting single dwellings as in your case and multiple occupancy apartments.
DaveB
The joy of communal laundries. Have you referred to your by-laws, unless there is a bylaw in place regarding the use of these laundries then any notice the executive committee may place there is unenforceable.
Whilst it is impossible to answer your last question, it may be better for the owners corporation to consider the use of washing machines which incorporate heating coils internally than providing hot water from an external source.
Depending on the space you have available, have you considered buying your own dryer and installing it within your own unit? Then you wouldn’t be facing communal dryers contaminated with smelly and unhygienic substances.
@peterepete said:
Thanks for your replies.In answer – The bathroom tiles and bath are 73 years old.
Wow! Well the way I see it is that if you want to replace all the bathroom tiles then that’s fine, bearing in mind that the Owners Corporation is responsible for a portion of the work involving common property. It seems reasonable for them to bear the cost of removing and refitting the bath if that affects warranty on the work, but the replacement bath itself should be at your expense. If you want a fancier grade of tiles than those originally fitted any additional cost for that portion of the work should also be at your expense. If the OC are happy to go ahead with your tradespeople that is a matter for negotiation between yourself and them, but they may ask for more than one quote and have to agree with you on what proportion each pays. They should ensure the tradespeople are properly licensed and bear insurance cover. If you can’t reach agreement with the OC then of course you can go through the mediation and adjudication process of NCAT.
From what you describe the wall and tiles affixed to it would be all considered as common property, hence are indeed the responsibility of the owners corporation. The bath though has me guessing a bit, this item and plumbing above floor level are the responsibility of the owner. Is there a shower above the bath or is it separate? I’d just wonder why it is necessary to remove the bath, except if there were some plumbing leak below it in which case it may be your responsibility for that part.
Perhaps another matter or two to consider. Do the units with gardens have a higher unit entitlement than those without? Then those unit owners with gardens may feel that they are entitled to higher water usage to compensate for higher levies. And do the complaining owners on the upper floors benefit by the improved views over the gardens, when they don’t have to bother watering them or maintain the plants therein?
DaveB
Thanks Whale for the clarification. I’ll use the term Strata Manager in any future posts to allay any potential confusion between letting agencies and strata agencies.
(No problem Dave, I was just try to avoid confusion with subsequent posts, as its Property Managers who work for Owner/Landlords, and Strata Managers who do so for Owners Corporations – Whale)