[Fgc]

Thanks again.

[Fgc]

Thanks for the quick response, that’s exactly as I had thought.  Is there a statute of limitations on how long a strata committee can take to introduce a by-law passing responsibility?  Or by special resolution?

 

[Fgc]

@JimmyT said:
The owners corporation is responsible for all common property. In the absence of the special resolution by-law that they should have extracted from the renovator, then they, or their successors, have to wear the consequences.

This is why I have been saying for the past 15 year that there are serious problems with letting owners do what they want with common property on a nod and a wink.

It’s also why a common property by-law requires someone to be given responsibility for the ongoing maintenance (with that defaulting to the owners corp if they are stupid enough not to insist that responsibility shift to the renovator).

So look no further – if the Owners Corp can’t come up with a record of a registered by-law saying the previous owner has taken responsibility for the upkeep of the balcony, then it’s still their responsibility and they are obliged to fix it.

You can take that to the bank … and NCAT.   

Tremendously and immediately helpful as always! Many thanks. 

[Fgc]

@JimmyT said:

@Fgc said:
The exact wording is “must not obstruct lawful use of common property”.  I don’t think it needs to be a passageway per se, but if it were to get to the tribunal (it won’t), the first question they’re likely to ask is – if it’s causing an obstruction – why has there been no complaint for three years?  And what is the lawful use of the common property that it is obstructing?

I think any half-decent lawyer would argue that a lawful use of common property involves it being kept clear.

I think you may have to bite the bullet here and say that as soon as the strata committee provides a secure and easily accessible bike room, you will use it.

Then define what you mean by “secure” and ask that the bike room regularly reviews the usage and removes abandoned bikes so that it doesn’t become a bike dump.  For that, by-laws will have to be written and passed and that will give you roughly another year of “informal” parking.

Be reasonable but determined at every stage.  How’s that for a compromise?  

You’re probably right, but of course the argument wouldn’t be prosecuted by a half-decent lawyer, but by somebody from the Strata management company, who have shown themselves at every stage to be breathtakingly incompetent and completely ignorant of the law. 

Anyway I’d be perfectly happy to lock my bikes up in the store room if there was anywhere to secure them. 

The EC won’t do anything to provide secure storage, they’ll just threaten me with removing my bikes. What powers do they have to do so without a change to the by-laws? 

[Fgc]

@JimmyT said:

@Fgc said:
Section 3 refers to obstruction of common property, which I don’t think would be compelling with the bikes having been in their exact position for three years and not blocking any thoroughfare. 

I don’t think the definition of obstruction in this regard can be narrowly defined as physically impeding a passageway.

Otherwise, are you referring to your schemes’s specific by-laws?  

The exact wording is “must not obstruct lawful use of common property”.  I don’t think it needs to be a passageway per se, but if it were to get to the tribunal (it won’t), the first question they’re likely to ask is – if it’s causing an obstruction – why has there been no complaint for three years?  And what is the lawful use of the common property that it is obstructing?

The by-laws to the best of my knowledge are the old 1996 SSM Act By-laws in Schedule 1.  I think they’ve added one for e-voting but nothing relevant to this matter.

[Author]

Replies