Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
1) Is there a time limit for the length of time For Sale and For Lease signs hammered into common property lawns may remain there?
There is no limit under law but real estate agents will often quote this non-existent law to be allowed to keep their signs there. There are informal agreement – owners realise they may want to advertise their own properties at some point – and then there are by-laws.
2) Are there any rules if these types of signs are placed in a unit window rather than hammered into common property lawns?
In the case of window signs, they would come under any by-laws you may have about the outward appearance of the block
3) Our strata scheme does not have a by-law regarding such signs.
Yard signs may well be covered by standard by-laws about the appearance of the property or use of common property. In that case the committee can simply agree to tell the real estate agents to remove the signs.
For future reference you could pass a by-law or even a “protocol” establishing how long a yard sign can be in place before and after the property is let or sold.
Many strata schemes insist the signs be removed as soon as the deal is done. They have little interest in advertising a real estate agent’s services.
This is not a purely cosmetic issue. A “for sale” or “too let” sign that’s left too long tells the world that noone wants to live in your block.
4) If rules do exist about signage, please advise the legislation.
There are no laws on this that I know of – just individual schemes having their own 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.
My first impression is that the offender in question is selfish and not as you suggest, “stupid”. As I see it, the offender is interfering with the common property (being the camera) and interfering with another lot’s lawful use of a storage unit. The following comes to mind …
I have had conflicting thoughts over your post and at one point considered binning it completely. My main problem is that you start with an interpretation of the law which is not strictly correct, then there’s the fact that you are quoting law that may be relevant in some regards but not in others.
For instance, you have intepreted Section 153 to include loud music as a “nuisance”. That is not part of strata law and the word “nuisance”, in strata law, does not mean merely something that is annoying. Quoting the law on interference with provision of services is also not relevant.
I am not a lawyer but I would think the solution to this would lie in Section 6 of the Act which deals with common property and the ability for the owners corporation to licence its use to owners.
Telling other users to follow a course of action based on a false premise is very dangerous and for that reason I initially deleted this post. I have reinstated it to show you and other users where you have erred, in my 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.
One person replied that he knew of no Government grant. A rat-feeder personally assured me that his charity was very well funded with large Government grants, tax breaks and public donations – all illegal.
I am that person. So what’s illegal? They get tax breaks because they are a charity clearly doing charitable works unlike, say, a private school, which is a business designed to turn out entitled pricks who come out thinking they should run the country (because they probably will). Or a religion?
Regarding the grants, if you take the Cat Protection Society of NSW, I was only aware of the state grant of $15,500 and I didn’t know about the $257,000 Commonwealth grant. Big deal – a drop in their ocean.
But if you want some facts (because that’s what we deal with here), have a look at their annual report for 2019-2020. They’ve been doing pretty tough through Covid, while their cats have been offering comfort and companionship to a lot of isolated people.
And if you are really complaining about cats being on the street, why are you accusing a charity that gets them off the street of acting illegally?
Admit it, you just don’t like cats.
Enjoy your chillies.
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, let’s establish some facts. Is the storage facility common property or lot property? If it’s lot property, does the owner know or care?
If it’s common property, it’s easy. You put a notice on the storage room saying they are abandoned goods and, under the terms of the Uncollected Goods Act (1995) the owner has seven days (or 14 or whatever you choose) to remove them or they will be removed by the committee, and may be sold, given to charity or stored in commercial storage at the owners expense.
If you know who the storage thief is, you send the notice to them. Do not give into any threats of legal action or whatever. The only appropriate response to that kind of bullying in “bring it on”.
If the area is unused common property, consider leasing it to the storage thief on favourable terms (maybe 50 percent of the going rate for commercial storage locally).
If the storage is a privately owned store, then the lot owner can deal with it themselves, possibly using the same methods.
On the question of the security camera, that could be hard to prove and therefore hard to take action over. Of course, if there was a second security camera …
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.
Sadly, he IS an owner, so according to your advice, we can’t prevent him from becoming a committee member.
So you make sure at the next AGM there are more candidates than seats available, forcing an election at which you will make sure you already have the numbers to keep him off the committee. The fact that he’s been using the strata roll to promote his business should be enough to persuade owners not to vote for him.
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.
RAT-feeders (who believe they are feeding cats but in fact, creating a pest nuisance) are organized into a charitable society/ association. They receive significant taxation benefits, generous public donations and probably huge Government grants.
We got our kittens from a charity that rescues street cats, desexes them, returns them to the “wild” (because they can’t be domesticated) then finds homes for their kittens.
The cat charities that I know of survive mostly on charitable donations and other fun-raising efforts. I don’t know of any “huge government grants”.
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.
Under the privacy act, personal information can only be used a) with the permission of the owner (ie the lot owner) and b) only for the purpose intended or stated.
According to this government fact sheet, the Privacy Act only applies to organisations with an annual turnover of more than $3 million, unless prescribed under the Privacy Regulations (2013). This rule is what allows owners the right to see all the email addresses held by the owners corp or strata managers for their scheme.
Section 7 of the Privacy Regulations prescribes real estate agents as coming under the Privacy Act only in reklation to a residential tenancy database (see below) and I’m not sure if this specific behaviour would breach the Act.
The Privacy Act also has rules on Direct Marketing, but again, I’m not sure if a small real estate agency would be covered.
Just to be clear, I think what this rental agent is doing is immoral and wrong – I’m just not sure if it’s illegal.
Again, it’s up to individual owners to block the emails. The question remains of how the estate agent got hold of the email addresses (unless he is also an owner). That would seem to be where the privacy breach occurred.
Privacy Regulations – 7 Small business operators treated as organisations
Small business operators that operate residential tenancy databases
(1) For subsection 6E(2) of the Act, a small business operator that operates a residential tenancy database is prescribed.
(2) For subsection 6E(2) of the Act, the following acts or practices of a small business operator of the kind mentioned in subsection (1) are prescribed:
(a) an act done, or a practice engaged in, in connection with collecting personal information for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a residential tenancy database;
(b) an act done, or a practice engaged in, in connection with maintaining personal information on a residential tenancy database;
(c) an act done, or a practice engaged in, in connection with using or disclosing personal information that is stored on a residential tenancy database.
Definition of residential database (in Privacy Regulations):
residential tenancy database means a database that:
(a) stores personal information in relation to an individual’s occupation of residential premises as a tenant; and
(b) can be accessed by a person other than the operator of the database or a person acting for the operator.
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.
Unless he his also an owner, section 32 (b) of the Act would forbid him from being elected.
32 Persons who are not eligible to be appointed or elected to strata committee(1) The following persons are not eligible for appointment or election to a strata committee or to act as members of a strata committee unless they are also the owners of lots in the strata scheme—
(b) a person who acts as an agent for the leasing of a lot or lots in the strata scheme to tenants.
Regarding the strata roll you can ask the committee to tell him not to use it (although they have no power to prevent him). Perhaps they could threaten to advise owners that he is breaching privacy and that they should take care in their dealings with him.But really, it’s up to individual owners to ignore or block his emails, which is very easy to do.Perhaps an email from the committee to all owners saying the strata roll has been used without permission and that they can block emails from this person (and telling them how to do it) would dothe trick.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 of all, get all the email addresses of the other owners who don’t live in the building.
Then create a “ticket” of owners willing to get on to the committee with the intention of effecting change.
Then create a calm and logical document listing all the issues that are demonstrably affecting the building negatively.
Highlight any issue where you can clearly show that they are costing owners money.
DON’T, if you can possibly avoid it, make it personal. As soon as you start attcking people by name or by their role in the committee you will lose votes by the truckload.
Send your list of issues and the names of your action group to all the owners and ask for their support at the AGM.
If need be, organise proxy clusters so that votes aren’t wasted by too many proxy votes going to people who are over their limit
If you don’t have the support of other owners, don’t waste your time and energy pursuing 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.
Have the committee members who voted against this declared their conflict of interest? If not they may have committed an offence under Section 18 of Schedule 2 of the strata Act (below) and be liable for a maximum fine of $1100 each.
If they have declared their conflict of interest, that should hae been recorded in a special book and they should not have voted
If the committee members choose not to remedy this, then you can pursue them under section 18 or, if you just want to recoup the unpaid money for the strata scheme, you can apply to Fair Trading for mediation leading to a section 232 application for orders against the strata committee or owners corporation to pursue the debt.
On the question of declaring a conflict of interest, the conflicted member shouldn’t be present or vote when the matter is discussed, unless the committee agrees to allow it.
Also, they should not be present or vote on whether or not the committee is going to allow them to be there for the vote on the issue.
You probably will be portrayed as a stirrer if you pursue this. But these people should be reminded that gaining material advantage by not paying money you have agreed to pay is called fraud in any other walk of life, and there is no reason why strata should be different.
In your shoes, I would characterise this as an oversight on their part (even though they may never have intended to pay the money) and, as such, would propose that the owners corp not pursue them under Section 18 and accept settlement of the debts with no historic interest charged.
Otherwise I would be on to Fair Trading immediately and I would tell these backsliders that you will also be seeking costs if it goes to the tribunal.
18 Disclosure of pecuniary interests(1) If—
(a) a member of a strata committee has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter being considered or about to be considered at a meeting, and
(b) the interest appears to raise a conflict with the proper performance of the member’s duties in relation to the consideration of the matter,
the member must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member’s knowledge, disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the strata committee.
Maximum penalty—10 penalty units.(2) [Not relevant to this issue]
(3) Particulars of any disclosure made under this clause must be recorded by the strata committee in a book kept for the purpose and that book must be open at all reasonable hours to inspection by any person on payment of the fee determined by the strata committee.
(4) After a member has disclosed the nature of an interest in any matter, the member must not, unless the strata committee otherwise determines—
(a) be present during any deliberation of the strata committee with respect to the matter, or
(b) take part in any decision of the strata committee with respect to the matter.
(5) For the purposes of the making of a determination by the strata committee under subclause (4), a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter to which the disclosure relates must not—
(a) be present during any deliberation of the strata committee for the purpose of making the determination, or
(b) take part in the making by the strata committee of the determination.
(6) A contravention of this clause does not invalidate any decision of the strata committee.
(7) Without limiting subclause (1), a person has an indirect pecuniary interest in a matter if a person connected with the person has a direct interest in the matter.
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 interesting question and the strict interpretation of strata law might be that if donations aren’t in the annual budget, or a requirement of by-laws, then they shouldn’t be made.
Section 73 (4) of the Act, says on Admin funds (my emphasis):
(4) Amounts payable from fund
An owners corporation may pay money from its administrative fund only for the following purposes—
(a) payments of the kind for which estimates have been made under section 79 (1),
and
(d) other payments in connection with exercising its functions under this Act or the by-laws …
My building recently made a contribution to a “fighting fund” which was part of a campaign to allow owners corporations to pass and enforce by-laws without them being overturned in court as being discriminatory because one person or a minority disagreed with them.
The politics behind this are irrelevant (if widely publicised) except that it engendered strong opinions on both sides, with some people seeing the campaign as re-establishing our right to run our buildings as we see fit while others saw it as an attempt to by-pass the checks and balances that the law provides.
As far as I know, this was not in the budget, and neither was there a provision for such payments to be made generally, nor a by-law that allowed the committee to make these contributions. So was it part of the scheme ‘exercising its functions’?
I think this is something that all schemes should consider and establish protocols for its management. Would it be OK for a committee to provide election funding for a specific candidate or party in a local election? Is installing solar power which would not pay for itself for several years, if ever, be a valid function because it’s contributing to efforts to curb emmissions?
Personally, I think contributions should be allowed, as and when required, but the strata committee should poll owners first, even informally, to see if they were happy that their money was being spent this way. Surely keeping the community engaged and happy is one of the functions of the strata scheme.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 am still confused about what the issue is here.
The strata manager (SM) said they had agreed to the mediation and there was no record of the application for mediation being discussed at committee.
Are you saying that the SM was deliberately concealing the mediation and the issues around it from the committee? But if both the SM and the committee claimed they had approved the participation in the mediation, where is the problem? Someone has to agree to turn up at mediations (or not).
Why would the SM lie about this?
It would be helpful if you could explain in simple terms what you think the issue is. Rather than correct procedure not being followed, what were the consequences of that lapse?
If this is one example of many of a dysfunctional committee being bullied by a controlling SM, then that is another story and there are other remedies under strata law.
I agree that Section 9(3) of Schedule 2 is contradictory when SMs are making decisions on behalf of the strata committee without holding committee meetings. But there are a few contardictory parts of the Act that don’t bear close scrutiny.
For readers not overly familiar with strata law, this section allows owners who individually or collectively hold one third or more of the unit entitlements in a scheme to veto any motions on the agenda by prior submission to the committee – i.e. decisions can’t be made on that agenda item. This would require a meeting and an agenda so the SM’s executive rulings would by-pass that.
I have never heard of this clause being invoked apart from one bully-boy builder-developer who held 40 per cent of the votes in his scheme and blocked any moves by the committee to do anything he didn’t like. The solution was to hold general meetings where the veto would not apply.
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.