Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Seems it’s a bush lawyers pile on, so do let me jump right in. Two points: One: be aware that apparently those flexi hoses in most folk’s bathrooms hidden under vanities have a shorter life than most folks realize and which may be specifically mentioned as time-limited in your home insurance cover. And two: be careful of who you mess with, and how long you mess with them. A building near me had someone try to use the floor waste as an outlet after installing laundry gear in their modified bathroom. The 2 floors below were sopped in water. Both owners, and the committee, lawyered up as did Larry Laundry. So far it’s been years of action, counter action, and over a million dollars in lawyer fees and court costs and unsaleable units for an initial 3 grand repair job.
The lift crowd are right in saying the various older parts are becoming often near impossible to source, and certainly compared to modern plug and play like technology they are much more of a hassle and time consuming to up-keep. I wonder if there was any way to know who was replacing their lift before yours which might be available and from which you could commandeer parts?
In my experience lift maintenance is quite the closed shop to an almost mafioso level of arrangement between providers so going elsewhere is unlikely to address your issue. I imagine your annual budget must need consider servicing the current lift but also allocating future funds to totally upgrading or replacing the lift? There’s no cheap way around it unfortunately.
It cuts both ways and understanding the situation in-depth helps find a better response. We’ve had a bloke do our place for many years. He bought the run off a retiring guy who was a qualified landscaper where the new guy was a former teacher. What worked ok originally suffered in the new hands but on inquiry the committee and some owners were quick to scoff the new guys efforts but didn’t realize he was entitled to stay within the original contract terms and it’s limits, and that the committee rather than pay him more or alter his terms on proper review actually cut out some of the things they thought were not necessary. So it can be unfair to blame him if you don’t first fully understand what he has agreed to be there to do.
But anyway, in Qld at least, there is a 10 year time limit max that the same guy can extend his contract for. Beyond that the whole thing needs to go back to market, and before doing that you really should re-assess what your needs are, what tech can be now applied to make the role more efficient, what extras might be called for and who manages these, who on the committee or someone they will appoint will be capable and willing to be the contact person so too many folk don’t hound the guy, what an alternate provider may put forward, and what the general market values the work at in today’s pricing.
Over the years owner’s will pay a small fortune for this service and it’s generally, other than site insurance your 2nd most expensive annual cost, so it’s worth reviewing. Especially considering the effect it can have on the owner’s home enjoyment, site upkeep, nature of tenant the building attracts, and perceived site values that the work reflects across your whole property.
Smoke from BBQ’s and smoking are the same ‘nuisance’ not always policed within bylaws. If you feel brave enough have you considered writing an initial friendly note bring your concern to your neighbors attention? It’s a good first proactive step and perhaps the offending smoker is unaware of their consequence. Additional to that consider a cheap fire alarm on your balcony (seriously!). If it triggers often enough it’s sure to annoy them, and others, to the amount of smoke causing it, and hopefully that might bring some correction by them or others now sharing the pain. All the best with it. Cheers, C.
I think you can have some sway even though the AGM venue is a licensed premises. I’d put your concerns to the committee well before the next meeting setting out your reasons and suggesting a better approach and then putting this in a committee motion, if it’s dismissed by them I would consider then putting it in again but this time as a AGM motion for inclusion at the next AGM to be considered by all owners, not just committee folk. Obviously, you can’t stop folks drinking at the venue but you certainly would be in your rights to ask that due to the serious nature of the meeting and the things to be considered and discussed that folk do not drink alcohol until after the formal business of the AGM has concluded, and then they can go ahead get smashed and break stuff to their hearts content. If it annoys you enough to raise it here, it’s obviously something you feel you’d like addressed, and this is what I’d certainly do.
Isn’t this ridiculous? My mob hit the turps during every monthly committee meeting also (and knowing some of the personalities involved, I can understand the drive to do so!) You’d think people would have the respect for the owners they represent to remain sober prior to any meeting deliberations, and not to risk the quality of decision making, and recall for action or minutes thereafter, let alone any challenge to decisions made because of their altered minds while doing so. Afterwards: go your hardest, but not before or during when considering issues relating to one of many owner’s most important assets. I also think it’s a poor precedent and you can bet sooner or later someone with a drinking problem will find their way onto the committee and the disruption and poor outcomes resulting less than ideal and hard then to curtail.
When I looked into it with the Commissioner’s Office in Qld, apparently there is no rule against it so long as they will be considered to have acted reasonably.
When I raised this issue myself here in Flat Chat some time back Jimmy drafted a potential motion about staying dry until all the formal business of the meeting had been concluded. I was ready to put it up but withheld doing so on the advice of others in my block who thought that presenting it would also kybosh my other motion for the same AGM. But I’m still keen to do so at some point as I find the notion just disrespectful and annoying.
Anyways, I hope that offers you some thoughts and lets you know you are not the only one frustrated by this issue.
All the best, Cheers, C.
Sympathies to you. I once had swift success in evicting near-by dope heads when I bought to the attention of the leasing realtor that the residents were regularly drugged off their nut, that should police raid the premises they would without doubt find drugs, and on doing so the owner of the property not just the resident would be considered as much at fault and at real risk of police action. Even stand-off owner’s don’t want that and the offenders were gone the same day. That was all based on news reports at the time in Qld where a land owner was actually charged because renters of his property were found to be growing dope there even though this was unknown to the owner. Don’t be afraid to push things to get your way and you can often act anonymously should this better suit you. All the best, C.
I always find it astounding that the owner’s committee regularly do not have them on-hand, know them, refer to them, nor regularly comment on or disperse them to other owners and new tenants, as it is them that are legal required to enforce them, and having these known by tenants would, you’d expect, allow most folk to stay informed and avoid obvious breaches.
I’d be pretty sure someone’s insurance, your’s or the body corporate’s, would be covering your costs should your place not be habitable? Surely.
As to what makes a reasonable timeframe it might help to consider the recommended response times for a Qld apartment mangers group. Basically: if it’s urgent or dangerous it’s done in a day, and if it’s something they agree to get on with (and not delay or revisit another time) it should be done within 6 weeks. That get’s things done in a timely way, keeps some urgency about it, and saves talking about it for way too long.
Some quick thoughts: a comment from your buildings insurer might add insight and reasoning to the committee’s response, and I wouldn’t think this is the start of the Armageddon, sure a plant might fall but unlikely to do so, unless say the weather is harsh, and the chance of hitting someone is realistically very remote. But that said I do feel you have the right to ask it’s removal if you are overly concerned.
Our bylaws say we are not permitted to drill into the common property walls. Rather than ‘telling the committee what you plan to do’ you probably should ensure that’s not too dramatic to get them off side and make simple application for committee approval, using the other lots as precedent, outlining your respect for the structural integrity of the place, list your works and the pro who will do it with insurance. If they say yes, all good. If they say no you might or might not come back for round 2, but I’d bring them in on it first.
I can understand Council’s concern. I imagine it’s there to protect the area and the need to ensure the nature of fill will be appropriate. I’m sure you could bury all sorts of nonsense in there that would soon enough give way and wash down stream to become your neighbors concern, and once that horse has bolted good luck.
To be reasonable you need to have reasons. They don’t need to make sense but they need be offered. A simple Yes, or No, doesn’t give depth to your thought or a chance to respond, understand or counter. You see business proposals assessed as fair and reasonable, or unfair but reasonable all the time. Both need reasons to suggest or establish such.
What a mess. But I can empathize with the vendors just wanting out of a bad situation. But in defense of their lack of mention, who knows: the new guys might love the bloke, or he might be planning on moving (back to jail!) soon anyways. So, how much do you reveal? I ‘d think as little as required is what most folks do.
Another important oversight I’ve seen recently is the Strata Manager not making current financials available to prospective buyers in the agent sales guff. A recent owner in my block believed he had $6000 per lot (x 50 lots, so 300k) sitting in the corporate coffers – we didn’t: that was expended on capital works 6 months prior and we actually had just $300ish per lot.
I’m unsure if he pursued that, or will, but that’s like someone stealing the cash off you, or your lot costing thousands more when you need tip in for funds you thought were already there.