Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Go to the Owners Corporation Network (ACT) website and have a look around there. The website seems to be only sporadically updated (the copyright date is 2008 and the reference to training programs was posted in 2019) but the group is still active.
They used to have training through SCA (the strata managers’ professional body) and it seems they hope to have this again, covid-willing.
In the meantime their “Useful Links” page is a handy resource.
Anyone have anything more current?
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.
One of the unit is owned by DHSS, they have not been responsive in some of the maintenance costs required on the shared fence with our neighbor.
I’m not sure about Victoria but in other jursidictions if the fence is between one lot and another property – i.e. it effectively forms the outside boundary of the strata scheme – then the cost of maintenance is shared between the owners corporation and the owner of the neighbouring property.
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.
The hiring of a strata manager versus self managing is a such a personal choice for each strata. Mostly it depends upon the skills and knowledge of owners and everyone’s willingness to pitch in.
Could not agree more. And that’s probably the first question to ask the other anti-manager owners – do you have the knowledge, time and energy to do the work that the strata manager might otherwise be doing?
That’s why I suggested short-term contracts initially, just so that everybody in the scheme can sort themselves out, chase down defects, amend their by-laws and work out their invoicing and payment and internal communication systems.
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.
I’m not terribly au fait with Tasmanian strata law but on the briefest of reading, this is what I think
- Appointment of a strata manager can be done by a simple majority vote.
- the committee can make pretty much all of the decisions for the scheme unless the body corporate votes to limit their decision making power.
- This includes by-laws.
- In the early stages of your scheme, a strata manager might be a good idea. The cost should be about $250-$350 per unit per year (or it would be in Sydney). That’s less than the cost of a TV streaming service for peace of mind while you set yourselves up
- don’t blindly accept the strata manager proposed by the developer.
- don’t sign an initial strata management contract for more than the first year. If they’re any good, you’ll want them to stay on for longer later. If they’re not, you don’t want to be saddled with them for longer than you have to.
- If they say a longer contract is standard practice, and therefore you must sign them up for longer, thank them for their time and point out the exit.
- As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a special resolution in Tassie strata – just simple majority and unanimous votes.
While you might think a small scheme doesn’t need a strata manager, you are going to have people in there basing their ideas about procedure and right and wrong on what they’ve heard from other states.
Also, in a small scheme, disputes can get very personal very quickly. A strata manager can be the one to cut through misinformed opinionated squabbling with clear, unbiased and legally sound advice.
NB: This is not legal advice – merely an informed opinion.
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.
First thing: Unless she gave her resignation in writing, she probably hasn’t officially resigned.
However, if everything is kosher in that regard, then there is now a vacancy on the committee and the other members can elect any owner to fill it (unless someone else from that unit is already on the committee).
Obviously, the resigned member would be a candidate. But it’s up to the other members of the committee if they want her to rejoin before the AGM.
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.
Frank Higginson of Hynes Legal (who took part in the Strata of Origin webinar that I refereed earlier this week) says you should look here for “all the help you could want”: https://www.qld.gov.au/law/housing-and-neighbours/body-corporate.
That’s a pretty complicated website to wade through so I suggest you might also call the authorities on 1800 060 119 and talk it through with someone there.
Let us know how you go.
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.
Yeah, it seems like the information you have been given is partly correct but doesn’t apply to lot property
According to this Qld government fact sheet, owners are not restricted in the value of improvements to lot property.
Alterations to a lot
The BCCM Act does not restrict the changes or improvements an owner can make to their own lot.
If an owner wants to change their lot they should consider whether the change will affect common property.
See body corporate maintenance for more information on lot boundaries.
The lot owner should also see whether there are any by-laws that affect what change or improvements they can make.
However, it’s true that you can’t make improvements to common property worth over $3000 without general meeting approval.
Improvements by a lot owner
An owner can make an improvement to common property if approved by the committee or the body corporate at a general meeting.
The committee can approve an improvement by an owner if the:
- total cost is less than $3,000
- improvement does not detract from the appearance of a lot
- body corporate is satisfied that the use and enjoyment of the improvement is not likely to be a breach of the owner’s duties as an occupier (e.g. by causing a nuisance to others in the scheme).
If the committee cannot approve the work it must be authorised by ordinary resolution at a general meeting.
The owner must:
- comply with any conditions of approval
and
- maintain the improvement.
When an improvement is made to the common property by a lot owner they must give the body corporate details of the type of work and value of the improvement.
If the improvement increases the body corporate’s insurance premium, the owner may have to pay the extra.
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.
Is our strata agents just lying to us so they can collect the $900 for every extra general meeting we hold? Or is the QLD strata laws just that rediculous.
Have a look here at this Qld government web page; the standard limit on works not requiring general meeting approval is $200 per unit.
The relevant limit for committee spending (i.e. how much money a committee can spend) can be set by ordinary resolution of the body corporate (i.e. a motion voted on by the owners at a general meeting). There is no minimum or maximum limit that the body corporate can set.
If no amount is set by a general meeting resolution the relevant limit is calculated by multiplying the number of lots in the scheme by $200.
So, to save that $900 every time you want to approve repairs, just set a reasonably high limit at your next AGM. The $900 fee for running an AGM for 15 units seems a bit on the high side IMHO. Do you really need them to be involved at all?
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.
For the uninitiated, Section 238 is a provision under the Act by which owners can ask NCAT to remove committee members, office-bearers or the whole committee.
It also says in 238(2) that
Without limiting the grounds on which the Tribunal may order the removal from office of a person, the Tribunal may remove a person if it is satisfied that the person has—
(a) failed to comply with this Act or the regulations or the by-laws of the strata scheme, or
(b) failed to exercise due care and diligence, or engaged in serious misconduct, while holding the office.And although 238 (2) might well apply, my feeling is that the bar for such draconian measures is a bit higher than misleading owners, even if done deliberately.
All it takes is one brave soul to challenge the by-law via Section 157:
157 Order permitting keeping of animal(1) The Tribunal may, on application by the owner or occupier (with the consent of the owner) of a lot in a strata scheme, make an order declaring that the applicant may keep an animal on the lot or common property.
(2) The Tribunal must not make the order unless it is satisfied that—
(a) the by-laws permit the keeping of an animal with the approval of the owners corporation and provide that the owners corporation cannot unreasonably withhold consent to the keeping of an animal, and
(b) the owners corporation has unreasonably withheld its approval to the keeping of the animal on the lot or common property.
Or they could seek to have the by-law rescinded under Section 150:150 Order invalidating by-law(1) The Tribunal may, on the application of a person entitled to vote on the motion to make a by-law or the lessor of a leasehold strata scheme, make an order declaring a by-law to be invalid if the Tribunal considers that an owners corporation did not have the power to make the by-law or that the by-law is harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.
(2) The order, when recorded under section 246, has effect as if its terms were a by-law repealing the by-law declared invalid by the order (but subject to any relevant order made by a superior court).
(3) An order under this section operates on and from the date on which it is so recorded or from an earlier date specified in the order.
In reality, the objecting owner would probably only need to request mediation at Fair Trading for the SC to realise the by-law was invalid.The fact that there are at least two other legal avenues for overturning the by-law would suggest to me that the Tribunal is unlikely to go for 238 – unless the SC has wilfully ignored Tribunal rulings.And then there is good old-fashioned democracy. If the SC has run up large legal bills in trying to defend the indefensible, they can and should be voted out at the next AGM.It’s worth noting that in one of the blocks that was prominent in the “no pets” legal battle of the past couple of years, the owners, a majority of whom had supported legal action, then turned round and voted the strata committee’s key players out after they lost.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.
This is an all-too-common scenario – an over-privileged committee member rewarding themselves for all their hard work by annexing common property to enhance the value of their apartments, at the expense of the other residents.
There are a lot of elements in this, not least how you are going to get the chair to do the right thing. Let’s come back to that later.
Firstly, there is a formula for this kind of thing which is A-(B+C) = D where A is the independently assessed value of the expanded property, B is the independently assessed current value of the property and C is the cost of the renovation, including plans and legals. D is an amount the renovator must pay to the owners corp for the use of common property. This formula was set by the High Court (I think) and is the standard for these calculations.
You will also need the by-law to include a clause in which the renovator agrees that they (and any subsequent owners) are responsible for any common property changed in the extension, and an indemnity for any damage caused to common property or lot property during the renovation.
Finally, you will expect them to agree to a redistribution of levies based on the change of the apartment size. It doesn’t matter on what basis your unit entitlements are currently set. If it’s equal shares, it’s almost certainly wrong. This is an opportunity to set things straight as every other owner will find their levies reduced, so will be likely to agree.
Now, as for how you get the chair-sec to agree to this, point out that these are all standard legal clauses and you will very easily block the extension at NCAT if she doesn’t go along with the requests. Even if she gets a majority of other owners to agree, that would be considered a “fraud on a minority” and would be tossed by any reasonable tribunal or court.
If you are unsure of how to proceed, you and your neighbours should seriously consider employing our sponsors Strata Answers to manage this for you. If you just go along with this request you are going to lose money and potentially be liable for bad workmanship, cut corners and planning mistakes in perpetuity.
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.
I wrote to you a little while ago about renovations proceeding in residential strata. It continues to be an area of concern for many residents in my building (just over 100 apartments). While I sympathise with owners seeking to continue or commence renovations, I still believe it involves a risk to residents who are attempting to minimise contact which could result in Delta transmission.
Our strata committee has taken the letter as a reason to close our outdoor garden and pool area. The Chairman says he is concerned about fines.
Firstly, the Chant letter is not a Public Health Order – it’s a suggestion to strata managers, displaying a complete lack of understanding about the relationships between strata managers and committees. Strata managers can’t order committees to do anything. And what about the many, many schemes that don’t have strata managers?
Secondly, as for closing outsoor common areas, the PHOs related to the hot-spot LGAs didn’t tell blocks there to close outdoor common areas and didn’t even tell those residents to wear masks when they were in them.
I would be writing to your chair asking him to point out exactly who would fine the scheme and under what Public Health Order. You are actually at greater risk of being sued by residents who are being unreasonably and unlawfully denied the right to use common property.
By the way, plenty of strata gyms and pools are still open because they have imposed limits on use (e.g. one resident or two members of the same household at any one time) and introduced booking systems.
Erring on the side of caution is just choosing to make an error- it’s not good management.
I am wondering if you have heard of any other strata’s dealing with this letter. I do believe we should comply with the intent but do not believe it is enforceable through police fines cf actual Health Orders made under the Act.
The strata schemes I know best are ignoring it. It has no legal basis and doesn’t even make much sense from a health point of view.
I have another question for discussion about whether it would be unreasonable to place a restriction on a new renovation so that it commences once the stay at home and work from home orders are relaxed.
In Victoria and the ACT you can’t have any building work going on in a block where even just one unit is occupied by residents. So no, it’s not unreasonable – far from it. But unfortunately our state government is still hostage to the building industry on one form or another.
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.
Some people still get newspapers delivered and, in these plague-ridden times aren’t milk boxes a brilliant way of getting your Ubereats, pizzas and other takeaways delivered without having to encounter the delivery person? A case of “back to the future”, methinks.
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.
I can hear in my mind “ be careful what you wish for”
There’s not much detail but I sense the OP is against the removal of the milk boxes.
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.
Should the OC create a bylaw to ban children? Whilst for some residents this is tempting, the reality is that bringing up children is a fundamental right, not to be interfered with by any person or court.
Sorry, but that’s a bit of a spurious argument since strata law in mosts states specifically says you can’t create by-laws to ban children.
Right now the law in NSW defaults in favour of pets, although existing “no pets” by-laws may still have to be challenged at NCAT.
I’m sure we will soon see by-laws that allow pets provided no one in the block can present a valid medical cerificate proving that the presence of animals in the building would do them physical or mental harm. That’ll put the cat among the cavoodles.
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.
I suppose it depends on the doors – are they fire rated?
But what’s the problem here? Is your strata committee trying to get rid of them, using fire safety and security as an excuse?
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.