[Erte]

But is the OP not seeking a copy of something relating to a strata plan other than their own? Does privacy apply in that instance?

[Erte]

Well… I’m not sure that the buyers would necessarily have known that a second special levy was coming. We only resolved to start afresh and obtain new quotes early in March. And it was only at that point that we realised we’d need more in the kitty to pay for the replacement and thus a fresh levy. At which point the unit had just been declared sold.

Minutes from the EGM in early 2022 would have revealed that a special levy had been raised for the roof replacement (obviously with the previous owner paying their share). I can’t recall offhand if the minutes of the AGM four months later documented that the work hadn’t yet been scheduled. The “paper trail”, such as it is, would be in email correspondence between our strata managers (yes, strata not building) and the members of the SC (all owners, as it’s a small building) rather than the annual meeting minutes.

I mean, if a buyer sees evidence of a relatively recent levy for a roof replacement, you’d think they’d enquire as to the status of that job, given that it’s a major work. But it’s possible, I guess, that they might have assumed the work was progress, or at least scheduled, and as a result there would be no obligations on their part. I don’t believe the owners’ corp gave out bad info because we weren’t asked, but of course I don’t know what information may have been sought from our strata management company or what questions were asked of the vendors.

 

[Erte]

An update: our contact at our strata management company (who has admitted to me on the phone that they are “new to strata”) is providing advice that doesn’t make sense to me. They are insisting that the roof replacement is a “pre-existing matter” and that the new owners of the unit “are not required to contribute or be involved” for that reason. [That could be ambiguous, but in the context I’m interpreting contribute as “contribute funds”.]

As has been pointed out, much may depend on the date of settlement (if six weeks after sale it’s probably imminent) and how that aligns with our current decision-making (quotes have been received for consideration, we will shortly need to work what new special levy will need to be raised, so also imminent). Given past experience with the speed at which our SC moves, the levy discussion will likely follow settlement, so – for the sake of discussion – let’s say the new owners would be installed.

Given that, I can’t see how it would be right for the cost of the roof to be split between five owners rather than six, which is what the strata manager seems to be saying, simply because the roof’s bad state of repair was known prior to the sale and the process of having it replaced (but not the work itself) had begun.

I would have thought that, if a new special levy needs to be raised – post settlement of the sold unit – that the new owners would need to contribute their share. (And if pre-settlement, then the previous owners would be contributing.) I can’t imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate for that levy to be split only five ways. The fact that the roof was in need of replacement at the time of sale (“pre-existing matter”?) or that we’d attempted to take action on the matter would surely not be relevant, especially since we are effectively starting over. Am I wrong to think this?

I’d like to go back to the strata manager, or perhaps their senior manager, for clarification. My gut feeling is that “new-to-strata” person has misunderstood or even just explained things poorly. But I’d like be better prepared for such a discussion.

Is there a published source to which I can refer that covers this kind of thing? Or a recommended source of alternative advice?

[Background summary: Roof in need of replacement. Quotes sought, work order issued, additional funds raised through special levy over a year ago. Work was never begun or even scheduled. We are now effectively starting over, and have obtained new quotes. The money from the original special levy is sitting in the kitty, earmarked for the roof replacement. Looking at the quotes that have come in, we will almost certainly need to raise additional funds with a new special levy. This will be a decision we’ll likely be taking before the end of April or early May. One of the units was sold in early March. Settlement on that sale may be imminent, i.e. also before the end of April.]

[Erte]

Thank you kaindub and Flame Tree. I had a feeling I might be worrying unduly, as you say, but it was a scenario I’d not encountered before.

[Erte]

My 6-unit OC in NSW had the opposite experience: we shifted to Zoom because of the pandemic and have continued to meet that way because it’s so much more pleasurable and convenient for us. (Previously the six of us would huddle with our strata manager in the back stairwell of the building – cold, dark, noisy and generally uncomfortable, as well as not very private. Now we can all Zoom in from the comfort of our homes or wherever we might be.)

But the relevant similarity for us is that, initially, the strata management company had wanted us all to dial in via phone conference. Now, whatever issues one might have with Zoom and interaction, phone conferencing (for any group bigger than three) is a hundred times worse: no body language or facial reactions, unable to see who might be trying to contribute, etc. But the strata management company tried to argue that phone conferencing was “easier” for elderly owners, completely disregarding the fact that none of the owners in question are elderly or remotely IT-challenged 🙂

Anyway, we politely insisted that the meeting be changed from phone conference to Zoom. And we had to make that change again for a subsequent meeting, but now the strata manager has got the message and are scheduling via Zoom as the OC has instructed.

[Erte]

You say “I have lived here for ten years and there has never been a problem in the past.”

Did she begin complaining soon after her retirement? Or at some point after the outbreak of the pandemic in March 2020?

I ask because my own experience suggests that one or both of these could well be a factor. The past 18 months have, for me, seen a distinct rise in noise-related irritation and a decrease in personal tolerance. (And I don’t have hyperacusis.) It’s the result, I think, of a combination of things, including:
• more people in my building working from home (including the neighbour above with wood floors),
• being at home a lot more myself because of lockdowns and general caution (although I worked from home before the pandemic anyway, so this is just a difference of degree), and
• COVID-related depression.

Like the things you describe, the noises that irritate me wouldn’t be classified as outrageous or unreasonable. I’m talking about TV sound coming through the floor in the evening when there’s no other noise to obscure it, the noise of vacuum cleaner heads vigorously bumping on skirting boards, cupboard doors being closed a little too loudly,  chairs scraping on floors, etc., not screaming children, loud parties or drum kit practice. You could say intrusive rather than loud. But there’s more of it, I’m exposed to more of it, and recently there’s been little opportunity to escape it. Headphones and earplugs really aren’t a practical or comfortable solution for this kind of pervasive low-level noise. And I’ve discovered that it’s stressful and anxiety-making – much more so than I would have predicted – and it takes enormous restraint not to complain. Because no one wants to be “that” neighbour.

So I feel empathy for your downstairs neighbour even as I’d agree that her complaints sound excessive. I’m sure she too wants her home to be her sanctuary. Don’t we all?

Given that you’ve both been there a long time and the relationship has been reasonably good, it’s really worth trying to find some way to resolve things through good mediation and mutual creative problem-solving rather than resort to actions such as seeking an AVPO or the passive-aggressive leaving of earplugs that might tank the relationship for good, only adding to your own anxiety and likely not achieving the desired result of stopping the complaints.

I would certainly counsel against ignoring her. Ignore/don’t respond to the actual complaints, perhaps, but try if you can to maintain a cordial relationship and don’t stop interacting with her altogether. If she is, like so many of us, experiencing depression and anxiety as a result of the pandemic, loneliness, and/or being retired, then social isolation and feeling ostracised by her neighbours will probably only make that worse and almost certainly result in her feeling even more intolerant to domestic noise. Which you don’t want…

[Erte]

I dutifully put these posters up in my (Sydney) building the other day. Today, on returning from errand and seeing a resident in the stairwell/lobby unmasked, I took another look at the poster (printed at A4 size).

When viewed in place from a short distance, i.e. too far to really read any of the test, I realised the poster is not very well designed. The graphic looks, for want of a better word, “industrial” – like, say, a tradie wearing a dust mask. It doesn’t look like something aimed at residents of a domestic building. If I were passing by, it wouldn’t jump out as something immediately relevant to me.

And the key message (“wear a mask in common areas”) is too small and can’t be read unless you’re relatively close. I can see how this poster might easily be ignored or, at the very least, not be psychologically compelling to ordinary people going about their apartment building. I realise they government wants to make it look “official” but I really think the design could have been done much better in order to maximise attention/awareness/compliance.

[Erte]

Thanks Jimmy, thanks Tess! Yes, wholeheartedly agree the matter of the missing rainhead and shower water needs prompt attention. I did in fact mention it in a recent meeting and no one disagreed with me when I said it needed fixing. But this thread has reminded me to follow up!

[Erte]

I am often disturbed when the neighbour on level 3 in my building takes a late-night shower. But in my scenario it’s because their floor drain pipe extends to the skin of the building and the “catchment bucket” [rainhead? sorry, don’t know proper term] that would normally feed the water into the down pipe and into the drain has fallen off at some stage. So the water pours directly onto the path below, which is right near my own ground floor bathroom window. Basically a localised torrential downpour and very noisy. Not the stuff of soothing rain apps!

(Also not great if anyone should actually want to use the path at that time, since the path is narrow with building on one side and fence on the other.) 

[Erte]

Thank you, everyone, for all the explanations and advice! I am a little confused, though. If a building has retained a strata management company and has a “case worker” (for want of a better term), i.e. the person I’ve been referring to as our “strata manager”, what exactly is their role? And how is that connected with the strata committee?

To put it another way, if the SC is functioning in a customary/proper manner, what is it that the contact at the strata management company should be doing or contributing.

I think it’s perhaps telling, in relation to my building, that there are six owners and of the three who are on the SC at present only one of those is actually resident in the building. I wonder if this may have something to do with the delegating of functions to a professional and with certain aspects, such as the garden, being allowed to slide.

[Erte]

I dream of “good fairy raiders” who would help my neighbours “recycle properly” by removing all the non-recyclable junk they toss in the recycling bins! 🙂 

I also dream of neighbours who could refrain from disposing of their bottles in the recycling bins (mere metres from my windows) at midnight! But that’s a different topic… 

[Erte]

I’m interested in this general topic too. My building is small (six owners, four of whom are also residents) and we have a strata manager.

I’m a total newbie to all this. But it does seem to me that a strata manager (who might never see the building from one month to the next) would not be well placed to know what needed to be done and so perhaps must be alerted by owners who are.

For example, shortly after I moved in to my apartment I noticed that the common property clothes lines were perishing and the garage guttering was badly clogged with leaves (there was veritable garden growing out of it!). So I wrote to the strata manager with a question about it. She immediately ordered the work and it was done. 

All good. But I must say I regretted mentioning the clothes lines when I saw what we were charged for that. No doubt it would have been inappropriate to do so, but it would have been much cheaper for me to have bought the replacement line and taken an hour to install it myself! 

My current concern is the front and side garden for my building, which is badly in need of love (aka serious rejuvenation work, pruning, replanting, etc.). I’ve recently taken to trimming the ground cover myself whenever it starts to grow over the front path and fence, and clearing rubbish. But as far as I can tell from the financials/minutes for my building, no one has been hired to do even routine garden maintenance nor does it come up for discussion. I guess at least we’re not being ripped off! 

But it could be so much better, and better maintained. I do care about the appearance of my building as a whole: its interwar character is one of the reasons I bought my apartment in the first place. Given that there’s nothing happening, my personal inclination is to consult a horticulturalist/gardener I’ve worked with before and pay him myself to prepare a recommended makeover plan and quote that I could take to the OC/SC. That would be a one-time project and then a maintenance strategy would need to be set up. But I have no idea if this is a good way to proceed or not. 

[Erte]

I have a related query [hope it’s ok to add it here rather than starting a new post]: 

Neighbours on the ground floor of my apartment building are proposing a kitchen renovation that would include (among other things) moving the gas hot water heater for their apartment from inside the kitchen to an external wall. They are going about it correctly: have drafted a by-law and sought an EGM, which will be soon.

My question as a strata newbie is about how and when best to raise my concerns about the gas hot heater location. 

Background: 
The neighbours are proposing “relocating the hot water heater to the wall outside the kitchen area above the window”.

My understanding is that there are manufacturer rules (and perhaps more general building codes as well) for installing these appliances. In particular, they can’t be 150cm vertically from any openable window, which would actually preclude it from being placed above their own kitchen window (and below their upstairs neighbours’ window) since there wouldn’t be the necessary 3+ metres clearance between the two floors. It’s also my understanding that the heater would have to be placed so that it can be accessed without need for a ladder or scaffold, which also rules out what they’re proposing. 

Meanwhile, placing the heater at their window height would probably run into horizontal-distance-to-windows/corners rules. 

The other problem is that the wall in question is adjacent to a fairly narrow path (about 150cm wide, running between the back wall of the building and the back fence) that is the main way of accessing our apartments for all residents. So this heater would intrude fairly significantly (30cm?) into a frequently used pathway and could even be considered a hazard. 

Is this a matter I should raise in advance of the strata EGM or at the meeting itself? Should I communicate my concern to the strata manager or is that “not their job”?
The by-law doesn’t specify the model or type of heater: is it reasonable to ask about that level of detail or to request evidence that what is planned won’t break any installation rules?

I’ll be candid: I think it’s a bad idea. The building is an old one (late 1930s) and while not heritage listed, it is in a heritage conservation area. The addition of a white excrescence to the exterior brickwork – even if it is at the back of the building – in a location that all residents would have to walk past and look at every day, is not an appealing proposition. But personal taste and preference aside, I think there are genuine practical concerns and I’m not sure how best to raise them. 

[Erte]

@JimmyT said:

If neither of those work, and you are sure it’s the new neighbours, ask them if they have any idea who it is that keeps leaving the door open.

It’s definitely the new neighbours: it’s not some random third person who is coming by and opening their screen doors. 

To clarify, the screen doors in question are those for their flat’s front and back doors. (The common area at the back has no main/common door at all and the entrance to the common area at the front has old-school double doors with no screens.) The screen doors can be found open after the neighbours have left or arrived home. Or once after someone had come to their front door: the front door was closed behind them but the screen door was left open (not closed by the visitor, not closed by the neighbour) – highly evolved behaviour indeed.  🙂 

Seriously, though, this is why I was seeking advice. Since these doors are most definitely part of their flat but are affecting use/appearance of the common area.

[Author]

Replies