Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The relevant legislation is the “Workplace Surveillance Act 2005”.
Section 9 – This Part applies to the surveillance of an employee carried out or caused to be carried out by the employee’s employer while the employee is at work for the employer
I don’t believe that either knowing about a camera, or the lack of action to have a camera removed would qualify as having “caused” the surveillance to be carried out.
Section 10 (6) – Notice to an employee is not required under this section in the case of camera surveillance at a workplace of the employer that is not a usual workplace of the employee.
So even if you were worried that the OC had “caused” the surveillance, it does not include any trades that you have have on site (unless they are permanently there).
I drive on-site with a dash camera and I don’t think my employer would be in breach as it’s my personal dash cam. It would be different if they supplied the camera, though.
That’s my layperson’s opinion after reading the act.
From what I have seen where a supposedly qualified lawyer has commented on this sort of thing is that there is pretty much no right to privacy when in a public place, and even in private places there are only very specific and limited privacy rights.
Of course, if it’s attached to common property then there’s a whole avenue to get it removed (although for someone who is that way inclined, and who has already purchased the surveillance gear, it may end up being “moved” rather than “removed”).
Where is it listed that tenants must receive a copy of the Schemes by-laws within a certain period of commencing a lease?
Section 186.
Where is it listed that all lease agreements/occupations must be notified and listed on the strata roll and is there still a penalty for not notifying the OC of those who are occupying a Residential Lot?
Section 258.
Is there still a penalty applicable for those who fail to notify the OC of those occupying the Lot and does anyone have a record of the penalty ever being applied by the NCAT?
Yes, 5 penalty units as per the legislation. I have no idea how often, or if, it is ever applied.
Would the Penalty be ‘times’ the number of occupations the Owner failed to notify – ie each time a different person took occupation of the Lot?
It would be up to NCAT, however I would guess there would only be one penalty applied unless they kept doing it after the judgement and you took them to NCAT a second time.
I can’t comment on the Airbnb issue.
annmb, are the requests valid? Just because walls were not originally waterproofed, doesn’t mean that they aren’t causing a problem than needs to be rectified. And if you have no by-laws allocating reponsibilities for caring for exclusive use common property, then maybe you need to create some so that this owner has a framework to work within (he won’t want to spend his own money fixing common property, then being hit with a bill for the same work in the exclusive use areas for the other owners).
Personally, If I was trying to get something done and wasn’t getting anywhere because one owner doesn’t speak English and the other owner is “just tired and do not have the time” then I would be heading to Adjudication as well.
Sorry, I have no experience with QCAT so cannot answer your actual question, but someone else here will jump in, I’m sure.
@supersleuth said:
Thanks but if the authority is given to the SC by the OC to allow minor renovations, doesn’t it then pass out of the hands of the OC and consequently can’t be heard at an AGM?I’m not really up for going to a Tribunal for my kitchen ????
No, the OC always overrides the SC and can take back any powers delegated to the SC. The SC, on the other hand, cannot overrule a decision previously made by the OC.
I would have thought that you would be within your rights to demand an EGM at no cost to you since they should have raised your agenda item at the AGM (presuming it was submitted in time and correctly).
Ray, I think Jimmy’s right, there’s no way an OC could be expected to know the intentions of the person who left the car. Also, while the act and regs both use “abandoned” in the heading, the text in both simply refers to “left on common property”. And it refers to “obstructs the use of common property” so would apply if one of your visitor’s spots was unusable due to the abandoned car sitting in it. And, lets face it, you’re not going to stick an abandoned vehicle notice up as soon as a car parks, it’s probably going to be a couple of days, so the 5 days would blow out to at least 7. If someone challenged you after leaving a car around for that long against by-laws and with a notice up, what would be their argument?
Regarding where to put the vehicle… If you were to have it moved to the local Wilsons car park, then that would be legally parked but charges would accrue. This would be the same if you had it moved to the towing company’s holding yard. If, however, the OC moved it to a time limited or meter parking spot and allowed it to stay there in excess of the allowed time, then an offence has been committed by the OC who would be liable for a penalty. The vehicle’s owner has not committed that particular offence and would not be legally liable.
@JimmyT said:
By Jimmy Thomson
- Move it or lose it: OCs will be able to move cars parked illegally on common property to a place where parking is allowed. Like, out on the street to a parking meter where it can be fined, for instance? Watch that space.
And if the OC moves the car where it will be fined, then why would the fine not be correctly issued to the OC (after the registered owner nominates the OC on the back of the infringement notice).
As satisfying as it would be to stick it to those illegal parkers, it’s not right that the OC causes yet another parking offence.
And does the “lot owner” who is challenging the Owner’s Corp have to pay their share? Or do the other owners collectively have to raise a small levy to so that the challenging owner isn’t having any of their contributions used? And does this change depending on the outcome?
Personally, I wouldn’t be advocating for biometric security as I see two major issues with it…
1) It’s nowhere near as secure as people think
2) You can’t change a compromised “key” (eg, if someone has a record of your finger prints, you can’t just go and change your ifngers!)
See the article at https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/16/gummi_bears_defeat_fingerprint_sensors/
@Article said:
he took latent fingerprints from a glass, which he enhanced with a cyanoacrylate adhesive (super-glue fumes) and photographed with a digital camera. Using PhotoShop, he improved the contrast of the image and printed the fingerprint onto a transparency sheet.Matsumoto took a photo-sensitive printed-circuit board (which can be found in many electronic hobby shops) and used the fingerprint transparency to etch the fingerprint into the copper.
From this he made a gelatine finger using the print on the PCB
Matsumoto tried these attacks against eleven commercially available fingerprint biometric systems, and was able to reliably fool all of them.
Although elsewhere in the article it only gives an 80% success rate.
So, as long as you make sure that you don’t leave your fingerprints anywhere, and you don’t use any other system which records a fingerprint scan, then you should be OK using them for security.
However, if there are RFID tags that can have their codes changed (which is what these cloned tags would be) then there shouldn’t be any reason why you can’t just write your own unique codes onto RFID tags and get people to change them periodically. (eg, when a unit changes owners or tenants you delete the old tags from the system, put new unique ID numbers into the tags, and then re-add them to the building’s system. This would stop any previous clones from working).
Other options would be some of the more obscure key shapes (preferably ones that are under patent protection) or, depending on how far you want to go, multiple security devices (such as a tag and a fingerprint).
You will never find a perfect solution, you’ll have to strike a balance between cost, security and convenience.
@redcali said:
I recently moved into a brand new apartment as a tenant. Listed on the lease is myself and my partner. We’re also living with a teen (not listed on the lease) registered with the realtor.In the REINSW standard lease, section 29.2 says that the landlord agrees “to give each tenant under this agreement a copy of the key or opening device or information to open any lock or security device for the residential premises or common property to which the tenant is entitles to have access”. These have to be provided without charge to you (they can charge for additional copies if you ask for some for your teen)
So check your lease.
So the landlord being responsible, you should be able to tell the REA that you haven’t been provided with sufficient keys (two copies of each, as there are two people listed on the lease) and that you will be asking for a rent reduction until such time as they are provided. You should also detail the hours you have lost from your jobs and ask for compensation. (I’m not sure if you can get compensation, but you should still ask… It should get them moving pretty quickly).
It then becomes the landlord/agent’s responsibility to get them from strata (and to pay strata, if necessary)
@carl said:
Now I am receiving two letters a week from Energy Australia. However, it is not addressed to my name. So I am just returning them.
What should I do about that? Should I contact Energy Australia?
And how is it even possible that my account was cancelled and someone opened a new one? Can I call Energy Australia tomorrow and have them opening a new account for my neighbor without any sort of verification?
Carl,
Since the name’s different, it’s possibly just a mistake where they transferred the wrong property. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they are chasing someone else for this debt, not you (although they think that this person is at your address). This may escalate from letters to debt collectors, but you should be OK by simply telling them that the person that they’re chasing doesn’t live there and that you’ve never heard of them.
It may save some hassles by ringing Energy Australia and letting them know. It will save Energy Australia the fees on debt collectors (assuming that their internal systems actually act on your call).
Since you’re not out of pocket (they refunded the $50), it’s probably not worth complaining to the ombudsman.
RL, The NSW equivalent to EWOV is EWON at https://www.ewon.com.au/
Their brochure at
https://www.ewon.com.au/ewon/assets/File/Publications/EWON_Factsheets/Switching.pdf
says to contact EWON if:
• you are unable to find out who your retailer is
• your account has been transferred without your consent
• you are having trouble switching back to your old retailer
• you have been misled or pressured by an energy marketer
• your request to cancel a contract is not actioned.Their phone number is 1800 246 545
@JimmyT said:
@Donswayze said:
Q1 – Can they enforce that you must use a professional removals company?Yes, just as they can insist that your use qualified and licensed tradespeople.
I don’t see the connection… Tradies are legally required to be licensed for safety reasons. For example, you’re not allowed to just do your own electrical work and in strata this is especially true as it would pose a danger to the entire building. This bylaw, however, is effectively banning people from carrying their own possessions and is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
It’s also practically unenforceable as tenants aren’t required to be given a copy of the by-laws until 7 days after moving in so wouldn’t necessarily know, and what good would come from serving a notice to comply on a recently departed resident.
Yes, I understand that there may have been issues with damage with people moving, however removalists aren’t immune to this either and I’d rather take personal control to ensure no damage (and would be reluctant to trust my furniture to some removalists).
When moving out, I’d use lines like… “I don’t believe that by-law is legally enforceable. If you issue an NTC then I intend to dispute it”
or “No, I’m not moving out just now… I’m just moving my furniture out. I won’t actually be moving out until tomorrow” (depending on the wording of the by-law).
Sorry for the rant, but this type of over-regulation really gets to me. I like doing things myself wherever possible and I would get irritated if someone told me that I not only couldn’t do something simple like this, but actually had to pay to have it done.
What’s next? Forcing you to have your groceries home-delivered? Oh, someone’s car had a scratch so now only professional valet drivers are allowed to move cars into and out of the carpark? Some people seem to think that humans should be locked in a protective cage for our own safety, and only allowed to perform tasks that we have had four years of full-time training on.
Oh, and to be picky… “removalist” does not meet the meaning of “profession”, it is simply an “occupation”, so it is not possible to ever find a “professional removalist”.
You will need to carefully read the contract, It would be common for the developer to have some sort of an “out” if they were forced to make changes.
I would be pushing for as much as possible, depending on what the contract says. Even if the contract simply says that they have to refund your deposit, I would be claiming interest, and possibly losses due to the lengthy time between the change and them notifying you.
More information at https://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/aca_home/licensing/telcomm/app_form/accesing_buildings_install_tcomms_facilities.pdf
Some notes…
The carrier must…
take all reasonable steps to make use of existing facilities for
the activitySo if you had already cabled for high speed networking back to a central location, you could force them to install their equipment there and connect to your cables (they would not be allowed to run additional cables). You could then have multiple providers where you can patch to each unit from the basement!
You have some say in installation location for high speed broadband connections (not so for mobile phone towers).
An in-building subscriber connection must be housed in an
appropriate locality negotiated with the building ownerYou also get to supply a set of “building rules”. I would put anything about installation practices in here (although I’m not sure if they are binding).
Some of the timeframes mentioned in this document are scarily short!
Apparently they can access the equipment without notice if they need to to “maintain service”. Not sure if you are required to have someone “on-call” to let them in!
What rights does the OC have?
– Do they have the right to insist on certain installation methods / locations, or to reserve space allocated for other use?
– Do they have the right to insist on certain quality components (particularly aesthetics on fittings)?
– What rights do they have to ensure that the installers clean up after the job? and recourse if they don’t?
– What rights do they have to recover the expense of allowing access (including any supervision required, or people to be available to unlock doors – for the life of the installation)?
I don’t see it as a huge issue if someone is installing something for nothing as long as it doesn’t degrade the appearance of the property, affect maintenance, or get in the way of future improvements. However it is a concern when you can’t go through the checks you would normally do on installers and exert your normal rights as far as installation practices. For example, I can’t stand exposed conduit and will go to extra lengths and expense to have all wiring hidden – do I keep the right to insist on these standards? (obviously I would want the expense to be theirs, not mine!)