Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Our parking garage dates from the mid sixties, and has managed to cope with to-day’s 4WDs, including the odd Land Cruiser or Range Rover provided they are carefully centred in their spaces. No-one has asked about creating a cage, and the EC, of which I am a member, would surely deny them permission.
Recently, we have seen the advent of the first of the crew cab pickups that Jimmy mentioned. This leaves just enough space on either side, and it must be acknowledged that the truck is always well-centred in its space. However, its length is such that it encroaches by about 20 cm on to the common property — tolerable, but only barely so. For a while, the owner also parked a motorcycle between the truck and the wall, causing the truck to stick out quite a long way, inhibiting manoeuvres necessary to get even compact hatchbacks in and out of the spaces opposite and, in the view of most of us, breaching by-laws and a section of the NSW SSM Act.
When taxed with this, the owner extracted sections of a Standard created in 2004, i e some 40 years after our garage was built, and told us that the truck stuck out because the space was shorter and the manoeuvring space was wider than the Standard set out, so what were we complaining about? We pointed out that we were not bound by a Standard that had not existed at the time of construction, and that the spaces were as registered as part of our Strata Plan. Wiser counsel seems to have prevailed, and he appears to have made other arrangements for the bike.
There is just one space between the truck’s space and the end wall of the garage, currently used by a compact sedan. However, this space is linked to an apartment currently on the market. If the new owner drives a compact car, there should not be a problem. However, if their choice of vehicle turns out to be another crew cab, or perhaps one of today’s luxury-badged giant tarted-up farm implements, we shall observe proceedings with a degree of schadenfreude.
My Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a vehicle as “any conveyance for people, goods, etc., esp. on land.” A bicycle would thus appear to be included in the provisions of By-law 2. I accept that properly maintained and regularly used bicycles are not rubbish for the purposes of By-law 9, although this does cover “other material” as well. However, Boronia’s landings must be extraordinarily spacious if a parked bicycle does not cause any obstruction. Even slight obstruction would be totally unacceptable if the landings are part of an emergency exit route.
I agree arbitrary confiscation, especially if the owners are known, is not acceptable, but there do appear to be means for removal of abandoned goods after a suitable interval.
I agree that occasional and intermittent use can be accepted, but it would be a different matter if someone started hogging the communal power point to keep the shiny new Tesla charged for daily use!
The Strata will be insured, but most likely with an Excess that could equate to most of the cost. In any case, the insurer will be looking to recover the cost from you. If you caused the damage with your car, then you may be able to claim on 3rd Party damage cover, but again subject to your Excess and with potential implications for any No Claim Bonus that you may enjoy. Having already ‘owned up’, it might be best if you now complete the gentleperson’s triad — ‘pay up’ and ‘shut up’.
If your doors are fire-rated (compliance sticker somewhere on the frame), then measures to defeat the self-closing process are illegal, and should cause your building to fail the annual check that leads to filing of a compliance certificate with your local council. Corrective action to make individual apartment doors compliant should be charged to the respective owners, along with the cost of callback for your fire services officers. The Owners Corp may have to wear the cost attributed to the communal doors, but it should be a lesson learned.
Perhaps this could be argued as an ‘unreasonable’ withholding (by default) of permission to keep the dog.
Installing a beam after removal of part of a load-bearing wall is surely not a “minor alteration” irrespective of which state or territory laws apply.
♦ But we still need advice about the location of the property – Whale
Costa has described breaches of statute law as well as his scheme’s by-laws. Unfortunately, as he acknowledges, his scheme does not have the evidence to achieve conviction(s) of the presumed offender in court.
Someone might have to be on the right spot at the right time to catch the offender in the act. I haven’t done sums on the cost of CCTV and its associated supporting systems, but a scheme of 38 units might find it cost-effective (depending on layout and the number of cameras needed).
It may not be an explicitly stated role of the Owners Corporation or its Executive Committee to resolve inter-personal disputes, and there are no by-laws against being ‘difficult’ — in isolation — but there are rules against interfering with the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of other residents, and complaints and Notices to Comply could be carefully framed to capture this.
My submission to the review of the NSW Strata Act a few years ago (remember that, and the hope that it put into so many of our hearts?) included
“Something that cannot be legislated in detail, but would be desirable in some sort of preamble to the Act, is an expectation that occupants observe not just the letter of their Scheme’s By-laws, but also the spirit of those that are (or should be) intended to facilitate living at close quarters and sharing facilities.”
Can we live in hope that this could still come about, with a future Minister given strata affairs as a core responsibility and an opportunity to make a mark for future advancement?
The issue was occasionally raised informally by individuals during my five years in the chair. My view was that it would tend to create a master-servant type of relationship. I wanted to keep it voluntary; I was actually on the EC to help protect my investment! If asked about payment, I might have nominated a black cartridge for my printer as a goodwill gesture. Ultimately the incoming EC spontaneously gave me a gift card after I stepped down, and I appreciate that.
One or two individuals acted as if the master-servant relationship existed, and one still does, but I suppose you get them in every building.
Depending on the size of Costa’s scheme, and assuming you have a by-law based on the model by-laws attached to the NSW Strata Management Act, it may be possible to handle the matter at arm’s length by getting a circular out to all residents reminding them of the relevant by-law, with emphasis on the provision
(3) An owner or occupier of a lot must:
(a) comply with the local council’s requirements for the storage, handling and collection of garbage, waste and recyclable material, and
(b) notify the local council of any loss of, or damage to, receptacles provided by the local council for garbage, recyclable material or waste.
My local council in Sydney’s east explicitly excludes foam packing blocks and containers from its list of recyclables even if they are branded with the appropriate triangle marks. There may also be regulations about including trade waste in general garbage.
I appreciate that this may be oversimplifying matters; Costa has my sympathy. On the confidentiality issue, the managing agent presumably needs to use the content of the e-mail to be able to progress the complaint. If it comes to the point of issuing a Notice to Comply and then proceeding to a complaint to NCAT in the event of non-compliance, the requirement for mediation could be a real problem in terms of identity protection.
I can’t quote chapter and verse, but the first point seems analogous to the installation of an additional circuit within the apartment, perhaps to service an array of electrical equipment that might not have been envisaged over 30 years ago. That would surely be the owner’s responsibility.
Power outlets linked to the low-amperage lighting circuits seem like a disaster waiting to happen. 30 years’ trouble-free use seems like good luck (trickle chargers or low-powered hand-held vacuum cleaners perhaps), but the next owner might want to plug in a high-powered drill or something similar. Unfair? Yes, but the unfairness in this case seems to be attributable to the ‘cowboys’ responsible for the situation in the past, not the present strata administration probably acting on sound advice.
Not necessarily applicable as a precedent in Australia, but the following report on the forum “Frequent Business Traveller” is of interest.
A New York City man was evicted form his apartment after a Manhattan Housing Court judge ruled against him after he listed the apartment on Airbnb.
Henry Ikezi of Manhattan’s Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood was found guilty of “profiteering” after listing his apartment on Airbnb for $649 per night. Izeki had been paying $6,670 per month for the rent-stabilized apartment.
Izeki said that he had been living in the apartment with his family, only hosting tourists occasionally, although his landlord alleged that Izeki had been renting the apartment like a hotel. In New York, it is illegal to rent an entire home or apartment for fewer than 29 days.
In court, Izeki claimed that he could not remember whether or not he had charged anyone for a night’s stay, nor did he know whether he had slept at the apartment. The judge ordered Izeki to be out of the apartment by the end of the month.
The judge didn’t buy it. “Using a residential apartment as a hotel room and profiteering off of it is ground for eviction . . . as it undermines a purpose of the Rent Stabilization Code,’’ Stoller wrote in his 12-page ruling.
I think Whale has been a bit gentle on this issue. A pre-filled proxy form ready for signature, without an alternative blank form for completion by the individual owner (along with a clear explanation that there is no obligation to follow the recommendations of the caller of the meeting) strikes me as a breach of principles of appropriate governance. This EC member seems to be aiming to exploit natural inertia among some owners, and hope they will sign anything that looks ‘official’ in order to get an awkward issue out of the way quickly. Whether or not renjay58’s strata manager deserves to be replaced, the decision should be made by an informed majority. renjay58 should certainly try to communicate with as many fellow owners as possible, encourage attendance in person at the meeting (which would invalidate any proxy already given in ignorance) to learn first hand of the issues behind its convening or, if individuals are unable or unwilling to attend, ask for a later-dated open proxy, on the prescribed form, in his favour (which should also invalidate any proxy extracted by the dubious process described in the opening post).
I must admit to being a bit irritated when people talk about “the strata” doing (or not doing) things that they think should or should not be done. Do they mean the managing agent (who acts on behalf of the owners), the Executive Committee (who are responsible to their fellow owners) or the general body of owners (which includes the complainant)? My view is that we, the owners, are all “the strata” and we have a joint and individual responsibility for the proper management of our shared asset.
In response to David’s specific question, did he learn of this application from the local council? In my area (eastern Sydney), the local council advises individual owners potentially affected by a proposed development and invites comment. It is open such owners to express objections and, if David has concerns, he should certainly take advantage of the opportunity. I am not sure what collective standing the owners of a strata plan may have in such a situation, but no-one will be shot for trying by filing a joint response to the application.
A peephole does not necessarily invalidate the fire rating of a door. Our doors, installed as part of a fire safety upgrade some 10 years ago, came with peepholes, and have passed successive inspections ever since.