Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Noise comes under the Protection of the Environment (Noise Control) Regulation 2008
Noise Source
Time restrictions
Power tools 8 pm to 8 am on Sundays and public holidays 8 pm to 7 am on weekdays and Saturdays
Swimming pool and spa pumps 8 pm to 8 am on Sundays and public holidays 8 pm to 7 am on weekdays and Saturdays
Music Midnight to 8 am on Friday, Saturday or any day preceding a public holiday 10 pm to 8 am on any other day
Air conditioner or water heater 10 pm to 8 am on weekends and public holidays 10 pm to 7 am on weekdays
Motor vehicles (except when entering or leaving residential premises) 8 pm to 8 am on weekends and public holidays 8 pm to 7 am on weekdays
Refrigeration unit fitted to motor vehicles 8 pm to 8 am on weekends and public holidays 8 pm to 7 am on weekdays
I agree with Peter C and kiwipaul, but would add a couple of points for further consideration. As the door is an external one with a lot of use, the OC should get a heavy duty self closer and make sure it is installed and adjusted properly. The cheap little lightweight ones might suffice for screen doors and the like in a domestic situation, but are of little use in the situation you describe. About your neighbour who slams his door, as this door is fire rated it should also come with a self closing apparatus. If in proper working condition, it should be virtually impossible to slam that door. If he has tampered with the apparatus or disconnected it, he would most likely be in breach of the fire regulations. Worth getting the Managing Agent to check that out! These doors are all common property issues.
I wouldn’t be relying on what the owners say their plumbers say. Gas heaters can be extremely dangerous if not installed or vented correctly. Is it the present situation where some of the flues may be leading into a non-vented roof space, presumably common property? This definitely wouldn’t be in accordance with the standards, the flues should be vented outside the building. If I were you, I’d be getting an expert in ASAP to inspect the installations and give you a report on what is compliant and any rectifications which need to be made.
It’s basically a free market out there when it comes to renting an apartment. You’ve got certain rights if there is something which is not maintained in working condition, and part or all of the unit becomes uninhabitable.
The owner has to consider at what point renovations are needed to attract a tenant who will look after the property and pay a commensurate rental amount. If the property is run down then exisiting tenants are likely to move on and seek a better quality property.
You seem to be implying that what you’re getting is not fair value for the rent you’re paying ($5000 per month would be well above the average!) so perhaps you should be letting the owner know you aren’t happy with the deteriorating condition of the unit and try to negotiate either a refreshment of the place or a rental reduction.
@GraemeLG said:
I have been in our current rented apartment for 5 years on an annual lease. We are paying $5,000 per month rental.Over the last 5 years our total rent is slightly less than $300,000 total.
In that time certain furnishings and carpet have deteriorated with normal wear and tear. Three pair of aluminium sliding doors to balcony are also very old and increasingly difficult to move – the accompanying fly wire screen doors are currently held together with rivets.
To be fair the owners have renewed a dishwasher.
What rights if any, do we have as tenants for refurbishing of ageing and tired doors, carpet screens etc?
It’s got me rather puzzled that a by-law was passed at the AGM by the other three owners (if this applies to NSW). A by-law requires a special resolution passed by 75% of owners represented at the meeting. Then it has to be registered. Would suggest that the ball is in the OCs court, if they wish to enforce it then they have to go through the mediation and ajudication process, let them pay the fees.
David B
Under NSW legislation, your Strata could at a General Meeting resolve not to maintain this item of Common Property. The EC alone doesn’t have the power. In which case you certainly would not be wise to use the lift thereafter, as you could be held responsible for any damage to person(s) or property which may result. There would be a few other issues worth considering, such as whether your property values would be diminished by the absence of a lift, and the impact on the shops viability through restricting access to the disabled for example.
Lifts are an expensive maintenance item, and your sinking fund plan should allow such maintenance and refurbishment to be budgeted for as and when required.
Without going into the merits or otherwise of painting the building, and its colour, it would be interesting to know what percentage of owners attended the AGM, and were you there to contribute your views at the time? Unfortunately with my experience in Strata matters it is often apathy amongst owners which allows decisions to be made which are later regretted. Given that it is a harbourside block there may have been a good reason to paint the block to improve its resistance to water penetration, I used to own a unit near the harbour of white brick which looked great when new, but allowed water to penetrate and grew horrible green stains which disfigured the place badly.
DaveB
Tenants are equally responsible for observance of the by-laws as owners. Why would you have a lease condition requiring only so many car owners to live there, when they may be doing the right thing and parking their car in a legitimate place, ie not in a visitor car space? Anyhow they may not be car owners as such, having leased or borrowed the vehicle, and then parking in the visitor space. You’re also asking a bit much of the selling agent as well to determine whether prospective tenants are telling porkies about the number of vehicles they intend to bring with them.
Though I did once jump on a real estate agent who was advertising “additional parking” with a unit, which only had a single garage. I told him in no uncertain terms that the visitor parking on common property was not part of the title being sold therefore he must remove the reference from the advertisement. The unit he was selling was no different to any other in the complex, it had no additional allocated car parking.
Legitimate car spaces are shown on the strata plan as part of the lot, but how many cars the owners or tenants have at the beginning of their occupancy should have no bearing for the reasons above. In any case what is to stop them acquiring more vehicles after they take up occupancy under your suggestion?
regards
Dave B
We should read the article in today's Herald where an OC denied approval to put safety nets on a balcony in a unit where children lived.
The model by-laws adopted by most strata schemes would allow owners to put such devices up, at their own expense, provided they were competently installed and in keeping with the rest of the building. Similarly with window locking devices, which could be used to restrict opening of the window.
The comments on the article submitted on-line are very interesting, ranging from the expected “bad body corporate” to those who think the residents should bear their own responsibility for child safety. When I consider what is fair and equitable why should those owners without children in their unit have to subsidise installation of devices of those who do? Should all owners have to pay for devices in all units, when only a minority of units have any use for them? If these are to be a requirement, why doesn't the developer put them in in the first place?
The emergency escape issue is very valid, as fire brigade aerial equipment can reach up to 6 stories from ground. In many of the three storey blocks around, there is only one stairwell and if that is blocked the only way to get anyone out is via a window or balcony.
DaveB
Simone
I think we're going way off track here. Flyscreens should NEVER be seen as either a child safety restraint nor indeed an anti-burglary device. Most of them have very flimsy frames, and are attached by little plastic lugs which are often further weakened by exposure to UV radiation. The screens themselves are usually of fibreglass material and are not very strong, they can be pushed out from the frames easily as they're only held in by plastic beading. They are not generally designed to take the weight of a child falling against them. I believe the only way to stop children falling from windows is to restrict their opening or put bars on them, in the latter case it could mean compromising adult safety in the event of a fire in the building for example.
DaveB
Have a look at your by-laws to see who is responsible for insect screens. Whilst these almost certainly fall under the definition of being common property, the by-law may make owners responsible for the maintenance of screens which are attached to their lot. Many strata schemes would have adopted the by-law (5) which may be found here:
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/sch1.html
My interpretation of that requires the lot owner to repair/replace screens as required. Screens such as those in common stairwells are OC responsibility. There is a similar by-law which makes owners responsible for cleaning their windows, despite glazing in windows being part of common property.
Hope that helps
DaveB
I doubt whether the Council would happy with the situation either if he has people living in the van parked on the street. They also wouldn't be too happy about power lines across the footpath. It might be worth contacting your council about the matter and they could send out a ranger to deal with it. If he is using OC electricity then he should have to pay for it. Air conditioning isn't cheap to run, particularly in poorly insulated situations like a caravan. You should have a look at your electricity bills and see how much he's costing you, normally OC electricity for a few lights wouldn't be much.
I don't think you're being a meany at all, and should pull the plug on him. The correct place for his van is a van park, not the street or common property.
I'm presuming that the staircase is the only method of access to and from the units. Two things to consider, is there space for a chair and or table without impeding access to or escape from the units in the event of an emergency?
Are you adding to any combustible material in the stairwell? – in the case of wooden, plastic or upholstered items you certainly would be.
In the case of office buildings typically there is no material in stairwells which is combustible, carpets are allowed on stairs in residential buildings to reduce noise, and of course older ones may have wooden stairs which wouldn't comply with modern building standards.
You should be having an OH&S inspection every year, suggest you ask the inspector about requirements before adding any furnishings to stairwells.
Your water authority will bill the Owners Corporation for water consumption. As this is a charge to the admin fund, owners will pay a proportion in accordance with their unit entitlement, which is unlikely to relate to the actual quantity of water consumed by their unit in relation to the total charged out for the whole strata plan. Is this fair? I think not, as other services such as gas and electricity, and telephone are provided to the individual units, with separate metering for each unit.
It is possible to provide meters for individual units, but you'll find the water authority won't want to read individual meters for each unit when they can just charge out one bill for the whole plan. So then you're faced with having to get some-one else to read the meters and bill the individual owners to recoup costs. You'll also have to separately re-plumb the taps which relate to common property, and provide a meter (or meters) for them. Now if any one disputes the meter readings you have to be able to retest those meters for accuracy. Getting back to your original question, how much will all that cost? How long is a piece of string?
Once upon a time our water was charged out with a generous allowance for each household before excess water charges were levied, but since the decision was made some years back to charge for each drop consumed, an inequitable situation has existed for apartment dwellers, where there is little incentive to conserve water as the charging is more or less invisible as the previous poster has pointed out.
Hello bluemyndi
Is the storage cage shown on the strata plan, or does it just show a car space? Either way you could apply to your Managing Agent or Executive Committee for their sanctioning its removal in the way you propose.
Getting a swap with a visitor space requires a lot of hassle which I don't think is worthwhile, and it would be subject to a special resolution at a general meeting which may well be rejected by the other owners.
Without knowing exactly what the strata plan shows, it's impossible to answer whether the developers did something which is legal.