Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Ziggy
As spmaster noted they do need to fix it. You haven’t mentioned how old the building is and if its still under warranty, I assume it isn’t as I’m sure that would have been the SM & SC’s initial course of action but just flagging if you haven’t investigated that avenue already.
I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation that you undertake rectifications of CP. However in saying that I know that I’d get the ball rolling. I’d suggest you try a reputable strata remedial consultancy. You could ask on OCN for recommendations if you need any.
I wouldn’t engage them, just ascertain if they’re able to inspect, organise & supervise destructive investigation and rectifications. Get a quote from them which will only be the initial inspecition and provide that to the powers that be and ask them to provide a work order.
If it does get to NCAT, I’d suggest you ask prior for the current copy of the Compliance Certificate for your rooftop anchor points and static lines. As if abseiling is required to rectify the SP needs to be compliant and you don’t want yet another obstacle in your way delaying things.
Good luck!
Have you checked your by-laws by any chance? As you may have one that states that that only motor vehicles / bikes can stand in the car space, to avoid people storing furniture in the space. I’d suggest you check that and ask to have it on the next agenda and request that you join the meeting to discuss it with the committee members.
Some further ideas….. thinking on ways to avoid the NCAT journey…
Is it the strata manager assigned to your scheme who is the problem or is the strata management company failing to perform?
Have you tried speaking to senior management at the SM company to get your manager changed ?
Have you discussed a parting of ways through mutual termination of the agreement without penalty ? Sometimes it might be worth paying something short of the two years’ fees just to get rid of them?
The very threat of going to NCAT gives you some leverage.
But note… If you go to NCAT seeking a compulsory manager under s 237, any lot owner can make the application.
If you don’t want a compulsory manager and just want to terminate the SM agreement under s 72, then it gets more complicated….
- You need to go to Mediation first
- The application has to be made by the Owners Corporation, not you as lot owner ; so you would need a resolution of owners ( will they support?) to do this, which no doubt the SM would try to obstruct
John HutchinsonS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auPh: 0418 797 470Jimmy T wrote
Here’s my plan. Schemes should find out how many EVs could be charged at any given time using exisitng supplies and meters. When they reach their limit (on a first come, first served basis), they should have a plan in place for phase 2, which could be establishing the infrastructure so that users pay for the supply to their own parking spaces, or the owners corp installs fast charging points on common property.
I think few OC’s would have reason to stand in the way of the uptake of EV’s in buildings, but an owners corporation should provide a framework to ensure that when the day comes and spare capacity in the building does become an issue, then the necessary sharing that has to take place is a sharing by all, including those early adopters who got in first.
The way you do this is to have a by-law regime that covers all installations (including those of early adopters) and allows the OC to ensure that (1) whatever is installed will be compatible with any load sharing that has to be done in the future and (2) if common property electricity is being used, then an enduring obligation to pay for it is created.
This helps avoid storing up problems for future strata committees. It does not mean that everyone has to go off and pay a lawyer. There can be a standard by-law that gets Consented to whenever a new installation comes up for approval. Once set up it is not complicated.
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.auS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auI know saying that NCAT needs reform is preaching to the converted, but it highlights how the current batch of reforms to the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 is just tinkering around the edges.
The reality is that Strata Committees and Strata Managers can ride roughshod over the wishes of owners using well established tricks to avoid transparency – unhelpful access to records, paper EGM’s sprung at short notice, owner motions ruled out of order, First AGM’s with BM and SM contracts pushed through bemused owners etc – and the only recourse that owners have is to NCAT. Few owner applicants to NCAT would have got any satisfaction even if they had the stamina for the waiting and process.
We need to rethink reform of the Strata Schemes Management Act, not in terms of what strata committees and owners corporations will permit, but rather around what practical protection and recourse it can provide for strata owners where transparency is lacking or process abused. In practice a “You can take it to NCAT” response will never be adequate.
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.auS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auI think we all want to remove the roadblocks to EV charging and the reality is that EV charging in buildings has to happen in an incremental way, but there has to be some discipline around the way it is done. Not harsh discipline but the sort of discipline that typically is applied to other changes an owner wants to make….
That discipline comes from having suitable by-laws and those by-laws may come about from the initiative of the strata committee, a champion or from an individual owner who is a first mover. …Open options.
You can’t bypass obstinacy and ignorance, but there is no impediment getting EV charging going in a building unless one believes that approval of a by-law by a mere 50% of those attending a meeting is an impediment. Is it really ?
Looking at s108 it is clear that the section applies to Sustainability Infrastructure as much as to other changes to common property, it’s just the size of majority required that is reduced to make it easier – the legislators even put a note in there
(1) Procedure for authorising changes to common property ……
(2) Any such action may be taken by the owners corporation or owner only if a special resolution has first been passed by …….
Note : If the special resolution is a sustainability infrastructure resolution fewer votes may be needed to pass it. See section 5(1)(b).
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.auS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auThe story about the doctor who was told that he could not install EV charging in his car space raises important issues, and the podcast helps us understand them, but our sympathies for the doctor, and tugs at the heart strings, must be tempered by the legal realties of strata living…
“It says in strata law, that if you want to make a change to common property that is environmentally sustainable, it’s a minor renovation. It does not require a bylaw.”
Hmmm…
It is great that strata law is moving to make EV charging ( & solar pv) easier to get going in a strata building. s132B of the SSMA provides for these sorts of changes to common property to be the subject of a Sustainability Infrastructure Resolution that only requires a simple majority to get passed – no longer 75%. And the same applies to any by-law associated with the measure.
(b) to add to the common property, alter the common property or erect a new structure on common property for the purpose of installing sustainability infrastructure,
(c) to change the by-laws of the strata scheme for the purposes of the installation or use (or both) of sustainability infrastructure.
However…
There is nothing here to say that Sustainable Infrastructure Resolutions can somehow by-pass the usual s108 requirements.
The usual processes of s108 to authorise changes to common property still need to be followed and sustainability by-laws need the Consent of affected lot owners. s108 even references sustainability infrastructure resolutions.
So where does it say you don’t require a by-law and a general meeting resolution ?
s110 which deals with the approval of Minor Renovations is typically delegated to the Strata Committee and includes at s110 (3) (d)
“installing or replacing wiring or cabling or power or access points”
You would really have to doubt whether this was intended by the legislators to cover anything more than putting in an extra powerpoint or two in an apartment kitchen.
Any view that it somehow includes EV charging conflicts with the NSW government recently released Guide to Making your Residential Strata EV Ready which does not envisage strata committees providing consent without both by-laws and sustainability infrastructure motions passed at a general meeting of owners
If EV charging is approached in a piecemeal fashion, without any strategic planning, the owners corporation’s buildings are going to end up with legacy arrangements that could well conflict with a whole of building approach – that gives full consideration to electrical loads etc.
Enlightened buildings will take the whole of building approach in their planning and in the approvals they give …..from day one.
Back to our doctor….connecting a charger to common property power is very different to extending kitchen power points on your own supply.
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.auS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auI am waiting to move into an apartment in the Shark Park development at Woolooware next year.
I was thinking of purchasing an EV so I asked the developer if he would install a power point so I could charge my EV, but the answer was no sorry.
I was very disappointed so I wrote to all the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties and asked if they could help so far I have only had a we will get back to letter from all parties I am still waiting for a year now and no proper answers.
I think it should be legislated that all new apartment blocks should have a power point in each car spaces to charge an EV its the only way to force developers to do this otherwise for them its a waste of money.
So I have reached a brick wall. Maybe you can put more pressure on the Political parties.
Unfortunately I will not purchases an EV if I can’t charge overnight at this stage. So I can’t save the planet.
Hi Jimmy
I was listening to the podcast and you mentioned being curious about the 2mm rule. I could only think they were quoting from The Guide to Standards and Tolerances:
However, item 10.14 would imply over 1mm is defective.
10.14 Cracking in plasterboard, hard plaster and other plaster elements
Cracking in walls, ceilings and bulkheads is defective if it exists at handover or exceeds 1 mm in width within the first 24 months of completion and can be seen from a normal viewing position.
Cracking in recessed and butt joints is defective if it exists at handover or exceeds 1 mm in width within the first 24 months of completion and can be seen from a normal viewing position.
Hi Clare,
With goodwill a simple request by an owner to a strata manager for records that are easily accessible will usually be met. Absent the goodwill though ( I know YOU have been very tactful) the Committee and the Strata Manager will rely upon the provisions of the Strata Schemes Management Act that are very clear in that the only access an owner is ENTITLED to is if they organise a search of the scheme’s records (physically or online). – many owners have learnt this the hard way having taken their case all the way to NCAT only to be told that they might have made numerous requests but these were of no consequence because they were not via formal searches by the owner.
Alas as noted above there are numerous ways that an uncooperative SC or SM can make searches difficult or documents hard to find, but that cannot be assumed.
But on a brighter note… I can think of a number of instances where owners like yourself were understandably suspicious about the owners corporation doing work in the apts of Committee members and good on you for being so alert. However in practice the apts of strata committee members may well get more attention than others simply because strata committee members may be more engaged with the care and upkeep of their apartment and understand that owners corporations have obligations around waterproofing etc. Think of the investor owner who never visits their apartment and whose managing agent doesn’t pick up on the signs of water ingress and compare this with a more focused resident strata committee member alert to any leaks in their home that the owners corporation may be responsible for. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t investigate these works, just that you may find that technically the owners corporation is responsible after all.
Hope this helps
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.auS T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auThe 2021 legislation frees up owners to provide a single proxy reflecting the combined voting power of their holdings, so as not to run up against the 5% rule that would otherwise force them to find multiple nominees.
Further legislation currently being drafted is based on the recommendations of Report on the Review of the Strata Schemes Management Act, that was tabled in Parliament late last year and seeks to pull company nominees (no matter how many properties they represent) into the 5% restriction regime
See Recommendation 51
Refine the provisions in relation to proxies to include powers of attorney and company nominees as types of proxies subject to the same restrictions on the maximum number of votes a single person can hold.
This recognises that Company Nominees were never subject to the 5% restriction and that there is an INTENTION that they should be. Whether the Company Nomination is in respect of just one lot or multiple lots it seems misconceived that Company Nominations should be considered part of the 5% proxy restriction regime – after all, companies are forced to delegate their voting to a natural person.
The thoughts of others appreciated.
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470 e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.au
S T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.auDo you know when the Mask rules in strata common areas will be removed in NSW?
It seems strange this rule remains in place, while we can have 10-20 people into apartments, workplaces require no masks & and airlines can now fly into NSW without quarantine
However, I see nothing on any forward looking NSW Govt plans.
In our building, there are now many no longer wearing masks in common areas, something which I’d expect to continue. And, along with this, more complaints to strata about not following rules
As you’ve probably observed there are parts of a Strata Management Statement “SMS” that purport to tell the member strata schemes what to do, and this is not confined to the management of the shared facilities.
My understanding is that an SMS has the effect of binding all members (strata schemes) as if they had entered into an agreement. The SMS is also not necessarily confined to the management of shared facilities but more broadly governs relations between two or more schemes sharing a building.
This leads to the situation where an owners corporation has technically agreed to matters that would normally have been decided by resolution of its own members.
Some examples….
…each member scheme must enforce its own by-laws (there is no requirement in the SSMA for OC to enforce by-laws unless they so wish or are ordered)
…there must be no inconsistency between the by laws of a member scheme and any by-laws of the BMC
…each member scheme must engage the same strata manager as the strata manager engaged by the BMC
So we have a situation where matters that would normally be resolved upon by owners in general meeting, like the appointment of a different strata manager, become illegal motions that the member scheme’s chairperson should rule as out of order and not put to a vote.
So what happens if a member scheme goes ahead and resolves to appoint the strata manager of its choice ? – I have witnessed several schemes just going ahead and doing this despite the restrictions of their SMS –
They would appear to be breaching the SMS and therefore in a contractual dispute with the other member(s) of the BMC.
In practice it is unlikely that other BMC members will take action or invoke dispute resolution measures, but they could and then the lawyers would get involved and the fundamental question of whether strata scheme owners have been disenfranchised would be put on the table.
After all, owners are being bound by an agreement (SMS) that was entered into before they had had their first AGM and when all the parties to the signing the SMS were in all probability the same person – the original owner / developer entering into an agreement with himself
John Hutchinson
m: 0418 797470e: john.hutchinson@strataanswers.com.au
S T R A T A A N S W E R S PTY LTD practical solutions for strata living
abn 11 600 590 083
http://www.strataanswers.com.au