[Jimmy-T]

As detailed in this post, you could put up a motion to a general meeting  or committee meeting that the committee or strata manager be instructed to pursue any owner for specific breaches of by-laws.

If they fail to do so, Section 232(2)(e) of the Act allows owners to take action against the owners corporation (or committee) for “an exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function conferred or imposed by or under this Act or the by-laws of a strata scheme.”

This is something you would have to pursue yourself or in conjunction with other aggrieved owners.  There are no StrataKops who will do this for you.

That said, the simple act of applying for mediation as a precursor to an action under Section 232 would probably have a galvanising effect when the facts of strata life are laid out for all concerned.

Meanwhile, Section 35 of the Act allows a simple majority of owners at a general meeting to remove a committee member from the committee.

Section 45 of the Act allows a simple majority of committee members to sack an office-bearer by declaring an “office” vacant and electing a new member to fulfil that office (but they can remain as committee members).

Section 238 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to remove a committee member at its discretion or at the request of an owner or owners.

Bear in mind that any or all of these could have the effect of

1. Making the owners and committee members aware of their responsibilities and

2. A declaration of war.

However, if the committee’s argument is that they don’t want to do anything because it might cost the scheme legal expense, that excuse evaporates as soon as you say “I’m taking you to the Tribunal anyway”. It’s the old argument of, do the right thing and get on with it, or  be forced to and pay the additional expenses of trying not to,  but have to do it anyway when you lose.

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.

Flatchatty

[Jimmy-T]

A post about owners who moved their hot water tank into the roof space without notifying the OC or seeking permission (the post has since been removed at the OP’s request) illustrated how this apparent annexing of common property roof spaces can happen, possibly quite innocently.

Did the apartment owners not know they needed permission or was it a case of it being easier to apologise after the event than seek permission beforehand? In any case, it was resolved with retrospective permissions.

Being asked to sign a document like the one described by the OP might have avoided this.

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]

Also, I think the strata manager may be reluctant to table the question of the appointment of a replacement as this could be seen as a conflict of interest until a new committee is in place to assess applicants.

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 should have offered the third option – nothing has changed (as in this case).

In your position, I would try to tell other owners that by ignoring this issue, they are making themselves vulnerable for future expenses – such as, if a new owner buys the apartment and demands that the owners corp maintain the A/C as it is on common property.

As for costs, a majority of owners can instruct the strata committee NOT to hire lawyers and make it clear that if they do so, it will be at their own expense.  The law is unusually clear on this and any owner at any time can raise the issue at NCAT and can even take the committee to the Tribunal for failing to fulfill its duties under the law.

I wouldn’t waste another breath on arguing the point.  Take it to mediation (which is compulsory) then to NCAT. And get the complicit committee members and strata manager removed while you’re at 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.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Flatchatty

[Jimmy-T]

You could put up a motion to a general meeting  or committee meeting that the committee or strata manager be instructed to pursue any owner for specific breaches of by-laws.

If they fail to do so, Section 232(2)(e) of the Act allows owners to take action against the owners corporation (or committee) for “an exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function conferred or imposed by or under this Act or the by-laws of a strata scheme.”

This is something you would have to pursue yourself or in conjunction with other aggrieved owners.  There are no StrataKops who will do this for you.

Section 35 of the Act allows a simple majority of owners at a general meeting to remove a committee member from the committee.

Section 45 of the Act allows a simple majority of committee members to sack an office-bearer by declaring an “office” vacant and electing a new member to fulfil that office (but they can remain as committee members).

Section 238 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to remove a committee member at its discretion or at the request of an owner or owners.

Any of these would make it easier to then pursue the member for breaches of the by-laws.

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.

Chloe

[Jimmy-T]

Chloe wrote:

I don’t see any more replies here. Does it mean that the strata manager can break the law like it is described in this post and get away with it?

Sadly, many people come here for advice, take it (or don’t) and get a result which may be good or bad – but never come back to tell us what it was.

A subsequent question about taking action against a committee member who breaches by-laws has been moved  to HERE.

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.

Chloe

[Jimmy-T]

strataownersalliance wrote:

Lithium Ion batteries do not spontaneously combust. That is 100% factually incorrect.

Congratulations. You picked up that on that one occasion I did not specify damaged or incorrectly handle batteries, but I did say “can” so pfffft!

Anyway, I am not going to approve another of your posts until someone else has commented as this has gone on too long with just two voices.

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’m sorry but you are completely missing the point of the original article. It said: “Strata Community Association Queensland is now leading calls for urgent regulatory intervention, arguing that individual buildings cannot shoulder the burden of managing this crisis alone.”

You said, in many different ways, that this is something that can only be handled by Fair Trading or other government bodies, and not by strata schemes. It’s pretty much the same thing – except maybe you think there is no need for government intervention.

And my opinion is that I believe enough people in strata are concerned about this for them to start making bad decisions about what to do about e-vehicles. The facts about L-ion batteries are almost irrelevant – the perception is everything, especially when it comes to a vote at a strata general meeting.

And sure, maybe OCs will pass by-laws that can be challenged at the tribunal and in court – but why go to all that hassle if it can be avoided?

I actually think the risk is exaggerated and such risk as there is can be mitigated. But that isn’t going to happen  by cherry-picking facts and nit-picking debates.

For instance, I think I made it pretty clear that I was talking about damaged batteries spontaneously exploding. I never said, as you imply, that any battery has the potential to do so.

Owners corporations can control what people do on common property, including activities that are legal elsewhere, such as smoking, using bad language and dressing inappropriately (to name but a few).

Oh, and by the way, comparing trains in Victoria with strata in NSW is the epitome of false equivalence.  Actually comparing strata in Victoria with strata in NSW is a stretch too.  The reason nobody is even considering this in Victoria (if that is the case) is that there is no forum there for them to do so.  The media in Victoria is so wilfully blind to strata issues that they are almost culpable in the appalling state of affairs there.

So, we get it. You are pro e-vehicles. So am I.  But I don’t think “nothing to see here” is going to convince anyone. Consider this, more people have died in L-ion battery fires that have even been injured in flammable cladding blazes in Australia – and look what that did to apartments over the past few years.

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]

strataownersalliance wrote:

That is literally not the scope or job of a strata. Way beyond a strata remit and purpose.

Fire safety is one of the principal responsibilities of strata schemes’ owners. That’s why they can demand entry to your flat to check your smoke alarm and insist that you upgrade it when necessary. It’s not the same thing but neither is it “way beyond”.

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]

strataownersalliance wrote:

Simply claiming that a 100% valid argument is a false equivalence because it doesn’t suit is not a particularly good argument.

Yes, but they weren’t “100% valid”. Comparing car fuel which does not spontaneously combust with L-ion batteries which can, is a false equivalence. Comparing fires that can be doused by water and foam with fires that can’t, is a false equivalence.

My point is that you are right – owners corporations can’t dictate what you plug into your electrical sockets. But they might be able to control what you do on common property, and if you can’t take your scooter across common property then you won’t be able to plug it in at home.

This is the time for calm consideration, not US Versus THEM battles. Failure to find a compromise is more likely to lead to a total ban rather than a free-for-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.

[Jimmy-T]

strataownersalliance wrote:

Strata needs to stay in its lane.

So do people offering false equivalences.

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]

strataownersalliance wrote:

They cant possibly call themselves independent advocates while continuing to take “sponsorships” from the same industry they claim they are advocating for owners on.

Well, we are as guilty as anyone of that here at Flat Chat.  What we try to do is separate criticism of the elements in the industry from biting the specific hands that feed us.  And we try to promote the positive aspects of their services too.

That said, there have been occasions where I have cancelled sponsorship from companies with whose philosophies I disagree. And there are some companies which, if their sponsorship was the only way Flat Chat could survive, I would shut the website down.

The ideal situation would be if OCN was fully funded by the government – but then would they soften their approach to government policies. We live in an age where people expect everything on the internet to be free of charge and you have to be pretty nimble to navigate those waters and stay afloat without outside financial assistance.

But at least we’re not as bad as the Brisbane Courier Mail which once refused a paid ad from a consumer group because their property developer advertisers wouldn’t like 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]

strataownersalliance wrote:

We have had lithium ion batteries for 30 odd years. Why are we trying to govern something which has no proven risk above generic noise level now?

You seem to be taking the POV that I am against you because I’m stating facts.  Here’s a fact – I own and use an e-scooter and I live in an apartment.

Regarding your point about how long we’ve had L-ion batteries, it’s only recently that we’ve had batteries big enough to propel humans at considerable speed and in the current numbers in our homes. It’s also only recently that people have died in fires caused by L-ion batteries.  Nobody as far as I know has been killed by an exploding Sony Walkman.

Conspiracy theories about who is behind this and why help no one.

Fact 1: L-ion batteries, when they are misused, damaged or mishandled, can cause fires.

Fact 2: The fires caused by Li-ion batteries are different because the chemical reaction releases oxygen which sustains and increases the ferocity of the fires, which often also involve explosions. Apartment block water sprinklers will make little or no difference – they can literally burn under water.

Fact 3: People have died in fires caused by L-ion batteries.

Fact 4: There are many more of these large batteries in our homes than there ever have been and there is no control over where they come from, how safe they are and how they are handled.

OPINION: If we can’t address and consider the facts, we should expect the other side of the argument to do so either.

By the way, I’d love to get a link to one of the many cases you referred to where people have been allowed to store things in their car space when their by-laws say they can’t.  I’ve never heard of this but I don’t know everything.

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]

strataownersalliance wrote:

No strata in Australia can create a rule or govern appliances which are plugged into their own unit. That’s not tricky. That’s just a fact.

That’s obvious but avoids addressing what by-laws can be passed. What is tricky is that the hysteria that you describe could push OC into making “all or nothing” decisions.

Here’s another fact for you – owners corporations can pass by-laws to govern the use of common property.  My building has a by-law that says you can’t charge your e-bike or e-scooter on common property (a such as your balcony). You have to do it inside your apartment.

There seems to be hysteria on both sides and the less calm and sensible discussion there is on these issues, the more likely it is that sooner or later a strata scheme will decide to not allow any kind of e-vehicles on any part of common property and that is when the real fight will begin.

The NSW fire department has told our OC that there is “no safe place” to charge e-vehicles in an apartment building. Our strata committee is clinging to that like it isthe word of God, partly because purely technically it’s true if they mean a battery fire can start anywhere and spread eventually.

The dumb thing is that we have a bicycle room that is effectively a solid concrete box where e-vehicles could be charged, their charging monitored and the risk of fire spreading seriously mitigated.

But no, the fire God says “nowhere” so we have a by-law that would probably fall over the first time it was challenged and which I’m pretty sure is ignored anyway because you can’t see what’s going on every balcony.

That’s what’s tricky – the gulf between the theory and the fears it fuels, and the realpolitik of strata.

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]

strataact wrote:

And if it is all , are strata dwellers to be banned or restricted in recharging laptops,  mobile phones, cordless drills, ipads, torches and the myriad of other devices containing rechargeable batteries.

In the building next to ours, someone dropped an electric razor down the garbage chute, the battery broke and it started a serious fire. We are never going to get L-ion batteries out of homes but we could require apartments to have L-Ion fire-proof blankets or provide them as a safety measure.  They do exist and cost between $100 and $150.

BTW, I reckon there are more fires caused by barbecues than e-scooters but try getting them out of apartment blocks.

And did you write “myriad of” to annoy me?

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