Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You might be right or not about the risk of vehicle fires but out of interest I heard recently that an EV fire takes 3000 gallons/15000 litres of water to extinguish, and a conventional car fire a comparitavely smaller 500 gallons/4500 litres. I wonder if supply for these amounts from on-site would be an issue at the time?
I think you might find what is acceptable, how to check if what your complaint is, and what can correct it, if you contact your own state’s Master Plumber’s Assn. What they say will be the go, not what any committee favoring other may say. It’s a point of potential embarrassment for the offending Lot so if annoying you worth the fight to get it addressed.
Hi, I think you will find that due to no work starting after the first special levy you have essentially gone no where so are free to ditch the last bloke, who has done nothing by the sounds of it so should have no claim, and restart with a new bloke at a new price, if not spec of works required. You might need to vote on the new blokes works and cost to get it all official. The incoming new owner won’t be up for the money the former owner already contributed, but will be required to stump up for anything further – which was collected for the roof now, but they will be for whatever comes next whenever that may be. The incoming owner’s conveyancing solicitor should have picked up on anything of note but if it is as you have explained it the new buyer was made aware of thus or was felt not needed to be, and on we all go.
Re sub-leasing/renting out a spare bedroom. I would suggest the sub-leasing mentioned in the legislation is intended as whole of apartment, and not just renters within the apartment (assuming the leasee is there also). These flatmates will come and go, and I assume won’t think it’s anyone else’s business to know such information while the leasee is there and contactable.
There will be a crusty few old diggers sorry to see these changes. I admired the nouse of those who knew how to assess the situation and drive a hard (at times ludicrous, self-favoring) bargain as the last man standing between the single or multi-site sale and the developer’s of-so-close profit. ‘Well played, Sir’ was nearly always my view to see it come off, if he pulled it off, and not get landlocked when the developer dug in, and went ahead or around them, leaving them stranded in the case of a large multi-lot proposal. So who will wear the white shoes now?!
Your body corp committee should be asked first by way of a regular meeting motion, but if that all proves too hard just get some stuff from Bunnings and do it yourself. If that doesn’t work or you couldn’t be bothered run it up the flag pole at a AGM where it’s all owners, not the committee, who will decide on the issue. If all that fails and it’s still bugging you look at adjutication.
From QBE’s webpage: Liability insurance under your home policy protects you from liability if someone is accidentally injured in your home or if you or a family member accidentally injure someone outside your home under the contents cover. It also provides protection if you or a family member are liable for loss or damage to another person’s property. Ends.
I think it’s safe to assume (but do so at your risk) that you are covered for most things unless specifically excluded, self-caused, or covered by another policy such as worker’s comp for tradies etc. Unless the Crooks, Burglars and Intruders Assn have their own policy I think they too would be covered as they would likely say they were a visitor who just popped in to say hi before anything else took place. But that might then change should they be convicted of a crime, much like insurance drops cover for drunk drivers if convicted etc. Or they payout the cost incurred by the policy holder but then go gunning for repayment from the thief.
I disagree with my cork endowed, wig-wearing justice. Insurance needs to be blanket coverage as there are just too many unforseens to be able to list each and all variations. Much like 3rd Party cover for your car. On that line, I imagine should an incident take place the insurer would likely pay out, and then might go seeing who they can get to pay for that payout. I’d assume that unless it’s specifically excluded in a policy that it is there-for included. And having needed to do that you can likely expect they will crank your policy price next year or exclude it going forward.
The committee is obliged to at least investigate a potential by-law breach as part of the job they volunteered to do, and to do so in a timely manner. In Qld, and I think I’ve got this right, you should write it up as an actionable motion for them to investigate then vote yes or no to your motion regarding the pooche at their next planned meeting, or flying minute if one is not planned for the next while. Refer to their duty to know the legislation in your introduction and quote that which you feeling they are not doing. Failure on the committee side to act within I think 6 weeks will be taken as a No vote and the motion would fail – which you would then take it to the Commissioner’s Office and it’s pretty likely they will be overruled as being unreasonable. That’s a long-winded process though but if it comes to that so be it.
When one owner does something silly, in a temporary or more permanent by-law or legislation breaching fashion, uninformed owners can think it is a committee fight only but that is not completely true. Sometimes the committee haven’t the fight in them, or go along with what to them is not an issue. Owners can still take up the matter personally with the right authority and if you think it will have long lasting, detrimental consequences that you won’t learn to live with, it might just be worth going it alone. Certainly, that’s the case in Queensland.
Updated by-laws are good, but does your committee actually enforce the ones they have now? Many don’t. They are required to know them and intend to apply them when a breach is bought to their attention (once satisfied it is a breach). Many just seem to just go with whatever a dominant committee member says is or isn’t a breach – which is often plain wrong or ignored, generally due to it being a committee member at fault or a difficult tenant they care not to deal with. And sometimes even the committee don’t even know, or want to know, it is their duty to uphold them.
I’d be putting a decent sign in sight from the Lot and on common property saying the exact unauthorized works are not included and are to be soon repatriated, with a suggestion all prospective owners be sure to have their conveyancing solicitor identify the formal Lot boundary and not take it as just what they are shown. It might also help to act as a prospective buyer and ask the agent to confirm such in writing, then it will likely be his head on the line as well as the seller. And acting as a interested neighbour visit the open house to be sure to ponder this aloud with other prospective buyers who would be interested in any intel they themselves would want to know before making any offer.
As a non-smoker I’d be happy to see the end of balcony smoking. Though I’m yet to suffer smoke drift I can appreciate how annoying and stressful it could be, as much for the scent as well as the on-going obstinance of a neighbor not interested in the stress they are causing.
My interest is more toward the annoying at best, dangerous at worst, balcony barbecues. My downstairs neighbor had no issue with a night barbie burning snags as the smoke drafted upward, around, and on to my balcony floor. I’d just shifted laundry so was saved but could see the real potential for a fire if a fat flash was to follow the smoke up. Though legal in the UK, the fire brigade there highly recommends not to barbecue on balconies for similar reasons.
There for, to help encourage better communal living it would make sense for affected Strata Committee’s to consider and then propose on-lot smoking areas that would be convenient to use, as well as procurement and sensible placing of a decent barbecue for all to use.
You two raise an interesting point re responsibility for failed installation. On say, a balcony where someone has done the work on a reno such as waterproofing and tiling, and a proactive committee has made agreement that the lot owner can do it and it is thereafter that lot’s ongoing responsible for its upkeep and no longer other owners. Then should other common reno areas, such as bathrooms, also be assigned as that lot owner’s ongoing responsibility?
It seems a bit tricky as though these areas are usually considered strata responsibility, but when you consider the content insurer-used reference that ‘if you tipped the joint upside down: everything that fails to the floor is the owners and that which doesn’t is usually the Strata’s.’ but hard-surface areas obviously won’t unless the tiling really is totally dodgy!
I’ve heard of balcony reno work being assigned, but not internal works. So should they be?