Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I went to the Fair Trading press release, and didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read Mr Stowe’s observation that “when people who are neither residents nor visitors of residents park their cars within the boundaries of a strata scheme, the owners corporation can contact the local council or police who may then order the removal of the car.” Can anyone cite an example of this having happened (other than when the car has been identified as reported stolen)? It seems our supposed justice system is intent on protecting offenders from their victims.
PeterC has mentioned the attachment to the ACT Unit Titles (Management) Act of a Code of Practice for Executive Committees and Strata Managers. This would be a welcome addition in NSW, and I sought to make this point in my submission to the recent review. I also mentioned the use throughout the Bill (as it then was) of clear and plain language, as well as the way in which it provided a clearly set-out and logical process for dealing with breaches of by-laws.
I wonder what the reaction might be to a notice beside the building entrance at ‘open for inspection’ time advising prospective purchasers/renters to verify the OC’s position on any representations regarding such things as tolerance of parking in visitors’ areas; the acceptance by ‘Strata’ (and the household downstairs) of the recently-installed wooden floor discovered by the Executive only when the planks were delivered; the marginally ventilated basement store-room with one power point that has miraculously morphed into a studio/home office (“see the monitor on the table in the corner and the rug that we have put on the bare concrete floor”); and pet friendliness (one dog allowed after scrutiny of its immaculate credentials).
One can be torn between, on the one hand, not wanting an arrogant owner to benefit from treating the general body of occupants with contempt and, on the other hand, putting any obstacle in the path of their prompt departure on acceptable terms!
It is important to ensure that any correspondence is on file where it will be seen if a prospective purchaser’s solicitor reviews the files with due diligence. Unfortunately renters in the present Sydney market are unlikely to be fussy enough to do that.
I think it is a sad reality that you can always make heroes of yourselves in the short term by keeping levies down, but sooner or later things will catch up with you. Someone else, presumably your successor, will have to impose a really big ‘hit’ – a special levy followed by a substantial increase in ongoing levies.
I have previously suggested that the ACCC could get involved in reviewing claims made by marketers of wooden floors. To say that a particular reduction of sound transmission, recorded by a testing system that is not necessarily univerally accepted, meets the requirements of ‘strata’ is frankly misleading when the general standard of ‘strata’, in NSW at least, is expressed in the model by-law requiring that floors be covered in a way that prevents noise transmission likely to disturb neighbours’ quiet enjoyment of their homes. There does seem to be widespread use of pseudo-science to exploit the ignorant. How many of us have a true understanding of the physics of sound and the various ways it is measured, let alone the physiology of its interaction with the human brain?
This is not the central issue but, while a wish to fly the flag from a flagpole is commendable, someone is going to have to be responsible for raising it in the morning and lowering it at sunset (unless it is to be kept illuminated overnight). There are rules to be observed, including a requirement to replace it promptly and properly when it becomes faded and battered from exposure to sun and wind. If the person behind the idea is committed to doing this, fine, but what happens when they move on for whatever reason?
Wouldn’t this also require local Council approval? This was certainly the case when we tried to do something similar at our 1960s block (which was designed to utilise incineration of garbage) and we needed extra storage to handle the change from twice weekly collection of conventional bins to once weekly collection of wheely bins. The plans that we submitted had been professionally developed, but they knocked it back, and we had to make alternative arrangements. If ccbaxter’s chairman is not a professional in the field, the proposal should not get to first base.
If this is in NSW, S.62 of the Act surely applies:
62 What are the duties of an owners corporation to maintain and repair property?
(1) An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation.
There may also be scope for action under Local Government and/or Health legislation.
Am I correct in saying that, if the door is ‘rated’ and your new lock can be deadlocked, this will lead to a ‘fail’ at the next fire inspection and you will be required to instal a compliant lock at your expense?
I am fortunate enough to live in a top floor unit, carpeted throughout except for kitchen, laundry and bathrooms. I have no wish for a wooden floor – my 1940s childhood on the Far North Coast left me with a perception that wooden floors meant you couldn’t afford lino. I think it is outrageous that the marketers of wooden floors claim that their insulation meets the standards of ‘Strata’ and wave various numerical readings to support their claims. The only requirement of ‘Strata’ is the subjective one, expressed in the Model By-law (unless an individual Scheme has introduced its own by-law to supersede it), “that all floor space within the lot is covered or otherwise treated to an extent sufficient to prevent the transmission from the floor space of noise likely to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot.” In other words, never mind the decibels, it’s the effect on others’ lives that matters. I just wish this could be enshrined more explicitly in the law, and that various tribunals would be more ready to support it. Indeed, the ACCC could do worse than review possible misleading behaviour on the part of the wooden floor industry.
A key word in the various optional alternative NSW Model By-laws is “keep”. Lawyers (which I am not) can have fun determining when a pet brought temporarily into a unit can be said to have transitioned to being “kept”. To me, as an amateur, the scenario presented here falls well short of “keeping” an animal on site.
Sounds like a sad waste of a good red! You are more deserving of it now.
More seriously, have you been able to compare notes with your other neighbours? There may be quite a trail of vexatious complaints from this person.
I wish you luck, but bear in mind some practical considerations. Three people have to be available — the Chairman, the Secretary and the Strata Manager — if the meeting is to function properly. Then factor in things like major religious holidays (depending on local demographics) and you may find the options narrowing. Suggest you offer a range of dates when you can be available and hope you are not in too small a minority if the most preferred time doesn’t suit.
During five years in the chair of my scheme, I did chair meetings but was always aware of the difficulty in that I was also in the position of speaking to most matters before the Executive and, in many cases, leading the discussion. It was hard to do.
My successor has elected to delegate the formal chairing of the meeting to the Managing Agent (who does the job with efficiency born of training and experience) but he still leads the discussion on most items and takes an active and constructive part in our deliberations. I think there could be scope in the Act or Regulations to formalise such an arrangement – always on a mutually agreed basis.
You appear to be facing a need for a special levy to build a sinking fund that has been mismanaged. It is all too easy for an EC (or a dominant office holder) to seek hero status by ‘containing’ sinking fund levies, but such levies are, in effect, saving for the proverbial rainy day, which has now arrived and found the scheme unprepared. It seems the present EC is going to have to bite the bullet and raise the money. The owners who have already paid from their own pockets are likely to be mightily p*ssed off, and I don’t envy the present EC having to sort the issue out.