[Jimmy-T]

tina wrote:

I was overseas for three months.  I could read forum posts but I was unable to login.  Are you deliberately blocking non-Australian IP addresses?

Yes.  I can’t see why anyone from overseas would want to engage (apart from travelling Flatchatters) and it’s the easiest way to block spammers and other miscreants who tend to be based in other countries. If you are overseas and want to make a contribution before you return, you can always email

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

I knew there was something dodgy about all this. Section 105A says owners corporations can’t charge fees for considering pet applications. The OP should ask for her money back, citing the the Strata Schemes Management Act, Section105A (below).  There is no need for a new by-law to allow pet fostering, but the committee might refuse to allow an excessive number of cats if they can show they would prove a nuisance. And, by the way, there are other parts of the legislation that cover animals that have been approved but later prove to be a nuisance.

105A   Bonds or fees relating to keeping of animals not payable

An owners corporation must not require an owner or occupier of a lot to—

(a)  pay a bond or fee relating to the keeping of an animal on the lot, or

(b)  obtain insurance for an animal kept on the lot.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

The Hood Wrote:

A point JT overlooks is the agent would be the delegate secretary and so your situation seems to be you are now writing to the delegate and not the elected secretary.

Didn’t overlook it , I just didn’t think it was hugely relevant.  Having had to deal with Netstrata managers who assumed all the functions of the strata committee, to the point where they wouldn’t even give the elected secretary the strata roll on the grounds that the delegated secretary (i.e. them) already had it, I can see how a strata manager would feel the law was being observed if they dealt with the correspondence, as per Section 43.  BTW, they cited BS privacy claims too – but that was before the Four Corners sky fell in on them.

But it is a point worth considering. The delegated roles of a strata manager purportedly exist to fulfil the functions of a strata committee or OC that they are not fulfilling themselves. An actionable problem would arise if the secretary refused to read or respond to communications and the committee instructed the strata manager to do likewise.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

I felt a bit guilty casually mentioning that we had lost $50k but that was what it amounted to, although spread over the five years. If we hadn’t been able to absorb it, it would have been crippling. From our perspective, it’s three fabulous overseas holidays that we didn’t have in exchange for not having to deal with the frustration and anxiety of knowing you are being ripped off, and that it’s only going to get worse, while the solutions were there but rendered irrelevant by the timidity and naivete of the majority of our former neighbours.

Strata would be the perfect systenm were it not for the fact that it has people in it.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

I think the savings will be made when insurers have to be more competitive with their products and the premiums they charge, rather than their enticements for strata managers. Yes, the SMs may well increase their fees, not least by adding a “fee for service”, but at least that won’t be a raw precentage of the insurance premium.

It shouldn’t cost 10 times as much to negotiate insurance cover for a block with ten times as many apartments. Th blocks that will feel the most pain are the smaller ones where the fee for service is more than the commission based on a percentage.

As for the $300m – I guess that’s how much will be saved over the next ten years when money for nothing is taken out of the equation.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

This from a spokesperson for NSW Fair Trading:

NSW Fair Trading is implementing the NSW Government’s ambitious reform agenda to lift standards across the strata industry through fair, transparent, and responsive regulation.

Upcoming strata reforms will introduce a new requirement for strata committee members to undertake mandatory annual training to ensure they have a clear understanding of their roles, legal obligations and rules governing their strata scheme.

NSW Fair Trading is working with the Owners Corporation Network to develop content for the free visual and interactive training course hosted on the NSW website.

Further information about the incoming requirements will be communicated on the nsw.gov.au website in the coming months.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

dy wrote:

will the training really stop the bad habits

Do driving schools prevent all road accidents?

But seriously, the training should weed out the people who just want to be on the committee to pursue their own agendas, or those who just want to stop other owners from having a say.  It should also  give those who are engaged and interested better information on which to base their decsions, and should resolve more arguments that it discusses.

Any system that has humans involved will be less than perfect, but then we shouldn’t let perfection be the enemy of good.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

Talking loudly in public is not a crime but littering is. The NSW government  has made it easier to report littering through its “Report a Tosser” app, part of its“Hey Tosser!” campaign. The app is available for download on both iOS and Android devices. It allows you to report littering incidents in real-time, providing details such as the location and type of litter.  There’s more information on this website. A visit from the local council or cops will probably move them on.

 

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

2 users thanked author for this post.

tina, Vermont

[Jimmy-T]

Having seen plutocracy in action, I can confirm that it does exist although it doesn’t happen in every scheme and when it does, it can be benign, or even positive for the building.

All it takes is for the owners of the largest properties to get together in pursuit of their mutual benefit and the simple fact of their deciding to work as a group gives them an advantage over those who don’t have the voting power and would rely on energising an uninterested, disconnected numerical majority to counter the concentration of votes.

It’s the Golden Rule – those who have the gold make the rules.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

For those of you who don’t know, a solar tube is a reflective tunnel that channels light from a rooftop dome, usually down through roof space to a ceiling unit that provides natural light.

Have a look at this video but please bear in mind this is from America and it’s a couple of years old so the prices quoted may be way off.  Google “solar tube” to find local installers.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

It has only just occurred to me that the system of giving more votes to the people with the highest unit entitlements, and therefore the highest levies, may be one of the reasons that so many older buildings have been falling into disrepair. You can’t get turkeys to vote for Christmas and you can’t get some people to vote for higher levies to pay for repairs when they have the power to save cash by voting against them.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

Stratalyzer wrote:

… what chance would the failed candidate have of getting it turned over at NCAT?

None. If it’s not illegal, what would the grounds be for having it overturned? It sounds like all the provisions of the proxy limitations were observed, and meticulously so.  There are recently added provisions under the Act where you can ask a majority of owners at a general meeting to remove office-bearers from their positions or members from the committee.  But unless you are prepared to launch a grass-roots campaign on a specific topic – such as a decision that you think is wrong and harms the building – you have buckley’s chance of getting that kind of support – especially when the proxies are harvested again.

The tribunal is not going to overturn an election unless there is a clear breach of the law and there isn’t, as far as I can tell.  They might even admire the committee for its efficient use of its perfectly legal powers.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

Agreed.  This is one of those cases where doing nothing is the best way forward.  Even if they send you a notice to comply, they have to take action at NCAT to enforce it and at some point, someone will point out that their by-law is not enforceable, for the reasons Uberowner outlined.

Apartments are the best places for cats – they don’t get to monster wildlife. And where else will we get the kitten videos to brighten our days?

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

1 user thanked author for this post.

zaraluna

[Jimmy-T]

I can go more radical that that! How about every apartment has the same voting power but two votes – one for the owner and one for the resident. That way the “double investors” – the people who live in the building  – would have the majority votes, the tenants would have a say and the decisions would be made by the people who have to live with the consequences.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Jimmy-T]

Your circumstances seem very specific but, generally speaking, any common services that run through lot property are the responsibility of the OC.  Otherwise, (intheory) you could say, OK, this pipe junction is causing me too much trouble so I am closing it off.

If the OC disagrees, then take it to Mediation and then if necessarythe Tribunal where you will get some kind of definitive response.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Author]

Replies