Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I believe that I’ve read here previously that any owner can directly submit a claim on the OC Insurance without going through the committee.
Therefore, the owner should submit the claim and I suggest pay the excess noting that the skylight is their responsibility.
So why would you need to be there? Had your lease commenced?
Surely if you’re not the tenant yet there is no legal reason why you should be allowed on the premises unless doing an authorised inspection?
Now, is the residence not properly clean? If so put that on your report with lots of photos and note your expected remediation if you didn’t already clean it.
Oh Jimmy, your modesty is astounding. Why this column and you as its host are indeed true strata heroes. While all the people and organisations mentioned are important, you giving us a voice and a place to post are the true hero.
My fellow posters and I are truly thankful for the forum. And thanks to you and your overworked moderators who do a thankless job in ensuring that the place looks good and spam is minimised.
Lets see what 2019 brings. Hopefully the cessation of STHL.
@Paul2000 said:
The difference between strata and company title of course is that under company title the company, eg XYZ Pty Ltd, owns the building and you then hold shares in the company and that gives you a right of occupancy to a particular area (flat No 2 for example). There is no concept of ”common property” under corporations law as far as I am aware. I certainly wouldn’t be engaging architects, engineers and lawyers unless I had everyone well and truly onside first.The agreement reached at the first Extraordinary meeting between shareholders was to have plans for the redevelopment of the void cavity drafted by an architect and approved by Council. If Council had refused permission to have the area developed into a habitable area then the proposal would have ended. At the same meeting a formula was devised and agreed to by the shareholders of a valuation of the finished apartment with two bedrooms minus the valuation of the one bedroom that exists. The balance would give a 50% discount for using a space that was of no use to anyone else. The solicitor was engaged to draft the proxy approvals and paperwork without the need for another meeting to be held. All shareholders were on side until one had second thoughts later on and reneged his approval.
Thanks for the article on EVs. This would also be useful for the disabled who need to recharge electric scooters!
My story to tell was an extension into a back area or ‘void cavity’ in my apartment block of 8. However, it was a company title – and not strata, so strata laws didn’t apply. I owned and lived on the ground floor in a small one bedroom apartment. The unit next door was also one bedroom but had a common laundry situated behind it. All of the other units above were two bedroom. The builder in the 1950’s followed the brickwork for the walls of the rooms through all stories, but the back area behind my built in wardrobes was left as a ‘void cavity’ with the rough brick walls and a dirt floor. In essence there were three rooms already built with the brick wall layout present but never finished for living in. The telephone line for the apartment block passed through this area and part of the back wall was subterranean. The drawcard is that the apartment block is in a prime blue ribbon real estate waterfront beach area in Sydney’s northern beaches.
When this was brought to my attention via the apartment block plans from 1957 at our AGM, I of course wanted to extend into that area and an EGM was called to discuss. It was agreed in principle that if Council passed a DA the Body Corporate would sell me the area. A formula was devised of a valuation of a two bedroom minus the valuation of my existing one bedroom. I would then be given a discount of 50% of the difference of the valuation for using my initiative of developing an area that was of no use or access to anyone else. The 50% that I paid to the BC was to go to the very empty sinking fund to assist paying for building maintenance. It was a ‘win-win’ situation all around. This happened over 20 years ago, prior to the Sydney real estate boom. I would acquire the ‘void cavity’ for the payment of approximately $15,000. My share holding would increase on par with the others and I would be required to pay more in quarterly levies. A local solicitor experienced in corporations law drafted the necessary resolutions and agreements to increasing the shareholding etc. All other apartments were owner occupied by elderly residents on the old age pension who baulked at levy increases, so this extra bit of cash was more than welcome. The exception to unanimous approval negating to need to calling an EGM to pass the paperwork was the top storey unit – owned by an elderly country solicitor.
Council approved the plans which were sealed with the company seal. The plan included a window for the bedroom (the size of a small car windscreen) that fitted underneath those above it and matched the same size. The window was supported by a structural engineers report. Things went pear shaped when the country solicitor lobbied the other residents on his legal letterhead on the premise that a window would cause cracking and the building would ‘fall down’. Approval was withdrawn by the other owners and the project did not proceed.
The point I am making is that problems you may encounter are; 1.some owners can become jealous that another owner is getting something that they cannot get, 2. you may pay a lot in DA fees, reports, architect plants etc. and be left out of pocket for a project that does not proceed for some unanticipated reason 3. Relationships that were previously cordial with your neighbours can become strained, plus there is noise and inconvenience from building work if things did proceed. My solicitor was of the opinion that the ‘void cavity’ wasn’t common property as it could only be accessed through my wardrobes and I could remove the back of them and enter and leave as I pleased. Taking it to court to obtain a judgment for ‘specific performance’ would have been an expensive remedy for the Supreme Court. I did end up storing things in the void cavity such as my pushbike and uni books, but some years later sold up to become a member of the land of strata living. Oh….and I did put the backs back on the wardrobes!!
@ATARTS said:
even though i know they are not disabled,Ta
How do you know? Are you privy to their medical records? If so you’re bound by confidentiality requirements not to discuss them in a public forum.
Or is your (mis) ‘diagnosis’ based on your (incorrect) belief that disabled people present in a specific way and are easily identified?
Be very careful assuming what you think you know. If your rationale for refusing an assistance animal is based on your misdiagnosis then you may be personally liable for any compensation claim for discrimination.
Does the complex have CCTV? If so, might a screen showing people entering the complex embarrass paying guests? Especially with a pull through on the screen advising that footage is shared with police as required.
Of course intercom entry would prevent people just wandering into the complex. This is another issue that affects all residents.
Have you talked to the resident and asked if they are running a business? If the confirm they are then you can ask how they ensure the security of other residents in ensuring they know who they’ve allowed to enter the building and that customers leave once they’ve concluded their business.
If the business does involve intimate matters then there is also the potential for hazardous waste. How is this being disposed of?
Be thankful they’re attractive people. You could have me living opposite you wearing my boxers.
It depends how the damage was caused. We’re going through this at the moment in our block.
One unit has severe cracking in their brickwork. There was a leak in a nearby sewerage pipe that has now been repaired.
This was discovered there was a blockage in the sewerage pipe that needed to be cleared.
Around the same time a tenant drove their car through a brick wall near where the cracking was and when the insurance company was determining how to fix the fence they realised that the ground had sunk leaving the footings unable to support a new fence.
The collision did not cause any damage to the cracked brick wall.
The insurance company has advised that if the cause of the brick work cracking was as a result of earth movement caused by the leaking sewerage pipe it will be covered by insurance. If the cracking was caused by general earth movement then it’s not covered.
The insurance company has commissioned an engineer’s report to determine how the earth moved for the purpose of fixing the fence that will also be applicable for the cracked wall.
You have a long road ahead of you and be prepared to end up paying for it yourself.
The fire brigade will just destroy the gate if need be to save lives. They’ve done it before and won’t hesitate to do it again.
Nor will the police and ambos be gentle if there is an emergency.
As described the gate sounds partially complete. There needs to be a way for residents to view who is ringing the gate button for their residence and grant access to approved visitors.
Also, as it stands, any resident who is disabled might demand that there is a way for the gate to be opened from their residence if it is too arduous for them to make the long trek to the gate. And of course when it is raining no one wants do the walk.
Finally, why is it only locked at night? There are lots of break ins during the day.
Again, complete the requirements to make this a proper and secure gate and keep it locked 24 hours a day. There will need to be a method for the post person to enter to deliver mail but everybody else can buzz the resident they desire to visit.
Jimmy said:“issuing a fire ordinance order which could cost tens of thousands of dollars in sprinkler systems and whatnot….You could start by insisting that everyone installs a smoke alarm in every room (required by law).”
I just wanted to point out that smoke alarms are not required in every room, for most single story apartments one is likely all that is required.“For apartments, blocks of flats (Class 2 buildings) and residences over shops or caretaker flats (Class 4 parts of buildings) smoke alarms are required on or near the ceiling in the following areas in each flat or unit:• in every corridor or hallway associated with a bedroom, or, if there is no corridor or hallway, between the part of the unit containing the bedroom and the rest of the dwelling, and• in any storey not containing bedrooms. In these storeys smoke alarms should be located in the path of travel most likely to be used by those evacuating the unit.” (1)
Also pretty sure a 9 apartment building would not require sprinklers; I do not remember the exact specifics but I have a recollection (maybe from flat chat itself) that it might be required for new buildings above 6 storeys.However I do agree a fire ordinance order could easily be tens of thousands or more. For example.-for new apartment fire doors (or remediation of the existing ones for deadbolts, doors closers, gaps etc.– emergency exit signage and lighting– non slip stair edging– other fire compartment issues such ceiling or party wall penetrations– since the council can do pretty anything in the fire ordinance, if current BCA has requirements for hardwired fire alarms – my understanding they could order that as well; even though a private certifier may have found the standard self installed battery powered ones adequate.A smart strata scheme wishing to deter Short-term Holiday Lets might invite their insurer to increase premiums to cover the risk created by STHLs and then pass the increased fee on to the hosts.
So if the insurance company requires extra security measures to mitigate their increased risk can these expenses be charged to the owners of units that engage in STHLs?
E.g. installation of CCTV and ongoing costs? Cost of replacement of security cards each time a new tenant rents the property after each rental?
After all these cards can be easily copied and used to gain access at a later date, possibly for nefarious purposes.
Maybe with a little creative thinking there could be ways to assign specific costs to landlords of STHL residences?
and the amount of time the concierge has to spend on Airbnb guest issues
Surely a simple sign referring these guests to their landlord and that it is not a matter that will be handled by the concierge should suffice?
A reminder that they are trespassing if they then fail to leave and that police/security will be called would set the scene that they need to deal with the correct person.
Details of unruly tenants and their landlord or unit number should be maintained and put on the minutes of each OC meeting so that correct records are kept of emerging and ongoing issues.