Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Sound transmission and perception represent a complex mix of objective physics and individual reaction. Noise can be classed as sound that you don’t want to be hearing.
Of the examples given by Stratalearner, the music coming up through the double brick walls into people’s apartments seems most likely to be specific to the building if it represents some form of channelling of sound. Is there scope for some form of damping to be installed? Noise through closed apartment doors from people talking in the lobby outside seems like something to be expected unless you have a door that closes like that of a bank vault.
Transmission of noise at an increased volume when furniture is moved on a tiled terrace area and impacting, not directly underneath as one would expect, but diagonally across into the lounge room of the apartment below, reflects the efficient transmission of sound through solid structure, and is probably to be expected. One just has to hope that the neighbours recognise that one of the disciplines that apartment living imposes is a need to be considerate and not feel free to move furniture at any time of the day or night as they might be able to do in a detached house.
Stratalearner didn’t say whether the building has a lift. In a new building this should be unobtrusive in operation. Fitness enthusiasts using fire stairs instead can cause more disturbance, especially if they are not thoughtful to realise that the fire-rated doors are made to close firmly and definitely if left to slam, and that the stairwell acts as an echo chamber.
Other noises mentioned, such as hammering, have to be expected and also reflect transmission of sound through solid structure. However, if the sliding doors have to be ‘slammed’, it suggests a need for some form of cushioning.
Being able to hear children running and playing on the terrace area seems part of life, just as it would be if you lived in a detached house built to take maximum advantage of the plot area with a similarly positioned house next door housing lively children.
It would be evidence of deficient sound insulation if you could hear normal conversation from next door or if noise echoing around a precinct of blocks of similar height entered your apartment despite closed windows. The same would apply to a detached house with thoughtless neigbours, especially if sited in a valley.
Well said, JT! Petard is unfortunate to have a nutter for a neighbour. Most people’s reaction on learning that an irrationally disliked (or deservedly unpopular) neigbour was planning to sell would be to place no obstacle in their way. As Cromwell said to the Long Parliament,”You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”
On the other hand, if one finds a selling or letting agent blatantly misrepresenting the Owners’ position (e g acceptance of one well-credentialled dog on strict conditions being made out to be ‘open slather’; the shiny new floorboards ‘meet all the requirements of strata’ just because the timid deaf old lady downstairs hasn’t complained yet; sure, you can use your garage to store surplus furniture because the visitors’ area is there for you to park the second Range Rover). However, in such a case, it would be better to write to the agent(s) concerned, with copies to be kept on the Managing Agent’s file for inspection by a potential purchaser undertaking due diligence.
I have previously said that claims by those defending their installation of wooden floors that they meet the requirements of “strata” (whatever that is) on the basis of acoustic readings are groundless. The requirement in most strata scheme by-laws (if based on the model by-laws attached to the NSW Act) is a subjective one – i e does it or does it not cause problems for the neighbours and compromise their quiet enjoyment of their homes. If marketers are saying that acoustic tests that they may have commissioned ensure compliance with “Strata” requirements, then they are potentially misleading. I checked the websites of a few marketers of wooden flooring and of a widely used underlay. There was much about the appearance of the floors, but little or nothing about potential noise transmission. Perhaps the representations about success in noise attenuation are all made orally!
Over to you, Fair Trading and ACCC!
andyj’s message needs to be repeated loudly and often. Claims by those who have installed wooden floors that the installation meets the requirements of “strata” (whatever that is) on the basis of acoustic readings are groundless. The requirement in most strata scheme by-laws (if based on the model by-laws attached to the Act) is a subjective one – i e does it or does it not cause problems for the neighbours and compromise their quiet enjoyment of their homes. Any representations by marketers that results of acoustic testing that they may have commissioned ensure compliance with “Strata” requirements are misleading and should really come the the attention of the ACCC.
To Cosmo: I was perhaps a little loose in my expression when referring to a “Statutory Review”. NSW law requires a 10-year plan for a Scheme’s Sinking Fund, with the option of a review at 5 years. Our last review was mid 2008, and we plan a mid-life review this year.
To Jimmy: I note your arguments, which have merit. I’m not a finance expert, but hope to bounce the issues off one or two who do have relevant expertise but don’t make their incomes from lending money. As before, nothing personal!
“The sinking fund is not an emergency fund – it’s a repair and maintenance fund.”
Agreed — but the need for repairs can emerge literally overnight, and liquidity can be an asset in such a situation. I am the recent Chairman and current Treasurer of a scheme with a healthy sinking fund on which we have just had to draw for some unexpected sewerage works. We know of a pending need for retaining wall repairs and also have a roof membrane on borrowed time. The statutory review is due this year, and I would rather see a positive conclusion presented to the Owners.
And if there are emergencies, our friends at Lannocks will step up with loans which they say make more economic sense than sinking funds in the first place.
Nothing personal, but sn’t there something of a competing interest here? Loans have to be repaid and, if the EC have sought to make heroes of themselves by keeping levies down to a minimum, there could be a nasty shock at the next AGM as the proverbial chickens come home to roost.
It makes all sorts of sense to spend your sinking fund – that’s what it’s there for.
It also makes sense to be sure that you are covered for reasonably forseeable expenditure even if a precise time cannot be put to it.
The NSW Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 includes
“44 Who is required to comply with the by-laws?(1) The by-laws for a strata scheme bind the owners corporation and the owners and any mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession (whether in person or not), or lessee or occupier, of a lot to the same extent as if the by-laws:
(a) had been signed and sealed by the owners corporation and each owner and each such mortgagee, covenant chargee, lessee and occupier, and
(b) contained mutual covenants to observe and perform all the provisions of the by-laws.
(2) There is an implied covenant by the lessee in a lease of a lot or common property to comply with the by-laws for the strata scheme.
(3) In this section, ‘lessee’ means, in relation to a lot in a strata leasehold scheme, a sublessee of the lot.”
Irrespective of who owns what, this sounds scary. I’m not an electrician, but worrywort needs the services of one for his/her immediate problem. The solution may include upgrading the apartment’s wiring, with adequate circuits to provide for an array of electrical gear never imagined when the block was built, and a modern board with circuit breakers. Further ‘upstream’, the whole building may need to have its wiring renewed to a similar standard. Let’s hope the sinking fund is in sound shape.
I agree with PeterC. Life has its biases. Having an end unit is advantageous through the absence of one common wall and potentially an extra view (which may or may not be worth having). The proposed by-law has presumably been prompted on the grounds that the A/C is to be installed on common property. Maybe there is some scope for installing compact units within other apartments with minimal penetration of structure – subject of course to all the usual safeguards including a clear definition of responsibility for maintenance and repairs.
It seems por needs help. (S)he comes across as a person possibly recently arrived in the country, without any local support network network and not a strong command of English. Previous posts suggest that por’s negotiating position may have been weakened if signals have been given of a keenness to move out anyway. The landlord seems a tough nut, but for all that facing something of a bind in the form of a temptingly quick sale subject to vacant possession being gained several months early. Por needs a similarly tough nut as an advocate in support for upcoming eye-to-eye negotiation. It’s an awkward situation, but the landlord started it and should, ultimately, be the one to give way — provided por doesn’t blink first.
Typically, a Scheme’s By-laws will state that an owner or occupier of a lot must not park or stand any motor or other vehicle on common property except with the prior written approval of the owners corporation. So, by implication, the OC (presumably through its EC) may give that permission. There may be various circumstances where this may be a reasonable thing to do. However, I would strongly oppose any element of permanency in such an exemption. The permission should, at the very least, stipulate the type of vehicle (e g a trailer for the duration of a renovation project) and contain a definite ‘sunset clause’. The fact that the permission has been given should be disseminated to other residents, along with the time limit set. Otherwise, you will be setting a bad precedent and, potentially, sequestering part of the Scheme’s assets for an individual’s benefit and for an indefinite time.
I haven’t used Skype but have taken part in conventional videoconferences. Subject to any legal issues, it should work with one person at the remote site, but could it work with more than one remote participant? Who would be responsible for switching between the remote sites so that each could be heard? Might you need a separate computer for each remote participant? My mind is starting to boggle.
Voice phone teleconferencing, preferably using a dedicated receiver like the familiar three pointed ‘starfish’, should allow multiple remote participants.
See my post under “rubbish disposal initiative”.
Slobs happen.
I think andyj needs that strata lawyer to go through the grounds of the appeal and represent him (or at least guide him on representing himself if legal representation is not allowed). The installer of the floor will have a lot riding on the appeal, and you can bet your bottom dollar he had advice from a lawyer or some other sort of professional advocate.
I’m no electrician, but dealing with an appliance failure by fitting a higher capacity fuse seems like a last-resort admission of incompetence. I was once told by an electrician that fuses or circuit breakers are there, not as people believe, to protect electrical appliances but to protect the building’s wiring. The reported damage to the insulation seems to prove this point! The first electrician’s action seems at best irresponsible and potentially criminal.