Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am on the EC committee and being a ‘compliance check’ nazi would be a futile exercise. I can only rely on the Certificate of Compliance that the SM has on file, certifying the task was completed as mandated by legislation, as sufficient that the OC is covered in the case of a mishap.
I can only draw your attention to Section 118 of the Act that says the OC “must ensure” the locks are in place. An outdated compliance certificate isn’t going to do that.
Perhaps you could institute a by-law that says, once a year or at achange of occupant, owners must provide date-stamped pictures of the lock in place. Failure to do so will result in the OC seeking orders to enter and inspect, with all costs sheeted back to the non-compliant owners.
And if you think that’s far-fetched, energy companies use date-proven pictures of meter readings all the time.
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.
And to answer the original question, for a major renovation you might be best to talk to the strata manager, building manager and committee about how they would like you to proceed, then use that information to move a by-law that has their blessing (but not approval, which they can’t give) at a general meeting.
Again, larger schemes should have a catch-all by-law that all owners seeking renovations can sign up to, rather than everyone having to start from scratch every time a reno is planned.
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 forgot to address one of your questions directly:
I’m still not 100 percent sure of the timeline here. The tenants vacated early, you took them to NCAT, you lost there, Correct? So you then, thereafter, you took the renovator to court and lost there? Is that correct?
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.
Can anyone please give me guidance as to what compensation I may be entitled to or rent reduction as a result of necessary bathroom retiling? Hope you can give me an idea of how to approach the property management/owner.
Just to get this back on track, you apply to the landlord either for a reduction of rent for the time you had to move out OR reasonable compensation for the cost of staying elsewhere.
If the landlord refuses, contact Tenants NSW or go to their website and you’ll find a lot of information there on the best way to proceed.
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.
Seriously, is there a tenant who is demanding access to common property areas to which they – and even resident owners – are not entitled?
If there is, tell them “no” and let them take the issue up with NCAT where they will be told to go and grow up.
Strata committees really need to stop jumping at shadows and “potential” problems where none exist.
When tenants and owners starts demanding “rights” that don’t exist, just say “no” and let them make the running in trying to establish the facts.
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.
Neither of these clauses spell out that both owners must sign a proxy form for it to be valid.
In fact, Section 24 confusingly says in subclause 4 ,”The voting rights of co-owners of a lot may not be exercised by them individually but may be exercised: (a) by a proxy (who may be one of them), or (b) as provided by subclause (5).
Then 24.5 says “If … the rights of co-owners of a lot are not exercised by a proxy as referred to in subclause (4), one of them may act as such a proxy: (a) if the other co-owners are absent or those who are present give their consent, or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—if he or she is the owner first named on the strata roll as one of the co-owners.
So, in short, one of the co-owners of a lot can’t vote unless they have been given a proxy vote (presumably by the other owner) unless the other owner isn’t there. But why would they need a proxy if the other owner WAS there?
Again, neither of these clauses refer directly to who must sign a proxy form. Also, I have discovered an opinion from a very experienced strata lawyer that individual co-owners can each have an allocation of proxy votes to carry, up to the maximum, because the law limiting the number of proxies any owner can hold, spelled out in Sched.1, 26.7 refers to “person” not “owner” or “lot”: ie “the total number of proxies that may be held by a person …”,
I’d interested to hear how that played out in the Tribunal.
But getting back to the point, I couldn’t find any direct reference to how many owners should sign proxy forms, but I have found mentions of this in strata management websites that say both signatures of co-owners should be on the forms.
This whole thing is a mess that Fair Trading would do well to clear up in the current strata law review.
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 asked the offending lot (who bought a unit, renovated, creating a lot of dust and noise in the process and then sold making over $300k) for compensation. He was not interested. I then took him to the Local Court and LOST.
I had a horrible feeling you were going to say that. But just to be clear, for future reference, you lost the case at NCAT and then, thereafter, the local Court ignored the NCAT ruling? Is that correct?
If so, it’s deeply disappointing but hardly surprising. Even NCAT Members may have little grasp of the realities of strata living. Local Magistrates, one can only assume, even less so.
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.
You may have misread my post.
So what you are saying is the in the past the Chairman tried to convince the other owners that two people from the same lot can both be on the committee but you managed to thwart that efffort. Nevertheless, the owners still voted to have only two people on the committee and you were not one of them.
To be honest, I don’t think this battle of wills or clash of personalities is going to further your case one iota. The seniors in your block will be more alarmed by agitation and dissent (regardless of how justified it is) than any hypothetical claims, however valid, that the block isn’t being run properly.
In my experience, the one way to convince older owners – who are often on fixed incomes – to change their minds is to tell them that their money is being wasted. Telling them that someone they trust shouldn’t be trusted is a much harder sell.
Thus, your original approach that the “hidden” subscription to a strata law web service was suspicious, may have worked against you, whereas questions about money being spent on things the scheme doesn’t need would probably have more effect.
So your initial thrust in getting more tranparency on the finances was right, but your tactic may have been wrong. Presenting the owners with a simple approach along the lines of “here’s how we can save money” rather than “you are being swindled” might just get you that extra vote that you need to get on the committee.
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.
If I may suggest, you need to spell out more facts if you want clear answers.
One of the facts spelled out is that the Flatchatter is a tenant.
You write “necessary” renovation. Why “necessary”?
This is irrelevant. For whatever rason, the unit owner conducted a renovation that made the unit effectively uninhabitable for several days. That is the point of the question.
Was there a problem with say the pipes in the wall, the damage caused to your bathroom needed repairs, if so that would therefore be an Owners’ Corp responsibility. Was it not “urgent”, but just cosmetic? And the owner wanted to do it now? If so, then it was not really “necessary”.
Again, not really relevant. The issue is between the tenant and the landlord, not the tenant and the owners corp.
And of course there is my experience with NCAT: a neighbour renovated, caused my tenants problems (noise and dust), my tenants complained to NCAT seeking compensation FROM ME and they won.
And that would be becasue it is your responsibility as a member of the Owners Corproation to make sure your tenants can either enjoy their rental properly or be compensated for it. Tenants have very little power when it comes to dealing with other owners or the owners corproation. That’s your responsibility.
However, that NCAT ruling meant you had a figure to take to the other owner to demand compensation for your loss. A compensation figure that had been established at the Tribunal represents considerable leverage.
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.
At the AGM that from memory immediately followed my objection to Mr Secretary’s move to allow one lot owner to have two representatives on the OC, with a vote each …
On what basis is this being allowed? The only way that is permissable would be if the owner concerned owned two properties. Is that the case? Co-owners of the same lot cannot be on the committee at the same time.
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.
If I am reading this correctly, five townhouse owners have failed to respond to the self-check emails or letters and they are being targetted for independent checks. That seems reasonable to me, as long as the recalcitrant owners will be paying for the checks and not the owners corp.
It’s true that the strata scheme is responsible for common property windows (which they all will be) and it is entitled to check for possible failure or removal of child safety locks.
Section 106 of the Act says the OC is responsible for repair and maintenance of common property.
Section 118 of the Act says that “an owners corporation … must ensure that there are complying window safety devices for all windows of each building in the strata scheme that are windows to which this section applies.” (My emphasis). There is a maximum fine of $550 for failure to do so.
Section 122 of the Act empowers the OC, its agents, employees or contractors “enter on any part of the parcel of the scheme for the purpose of carrying out … work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation in accordance with this Act (including work relating to window safety devices …)
Paragraph 5 of the same section says owner could be fined up to $550 if they “obstruct or hinder an owners corporation in the exercise of its functions under this section.”
So, breaking that down, the owners corp is legally required to “ensure” that child safe window locks have been fitted and legally entitled to enter the property, if need be, to check that this has occurred. In cases where owners have declined to confirm the window locks are in place via a self-check, the OC is entitled to wonder if they are there at all, and obliged to find some other way of checking.
I would think a polite reminder that the windows need to be checked and if the owner refuses, then a contractor will do so at the owners cost and there is a maximum fine for not allowing them in to do so, would increase the level of self-check compliance overnight.
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.
In a block of 5 if all lots nominate one person every nominee will be on the committee, unless a motion is passed to limit the numbers of committee members.
Just to clarify, under the Regulations, the process is that the chair announces the nominations made in writing and calls for nominations. Then they must take a vote on the number of people required on the committee. If the nominations exceed the number of seats, an election takes place.
So it’s nominations first, size of committee next, then a poll if necessary to choose the members.
This is a tried and tested way of a tightly held committee restricting its membership, especially in a small scheme. In this case, it is possible that three owners could nominate themselves, vote to have only three seats on the committee and then elect themselves to those seats.
I like the idea that in small schemes all owners should be on the committee by default, but how small when the Act allows a maximum size of nine?
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 was going to say that the real problem here is a lack of transparency and accountability, rather than dishonesty, and while that may be the case, it’s becoming apparent that there’s a clash of personalities at the heart of this.
I sympathise. I found myself in a similar situation in the past, at loggerheads with a chair who said that he’d quit if I was ever elected to the committee. I wasted a lot of time and energy bashing my head off that brick wall but eventually decided that I could get my opinions across by other means, via more sympathetic voices.
They say it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees – but then living on your feet trumps them both. The sense of relief when you decide to stop fighting unwinnable battles and not take the bait when it’s dangled before you is immense.
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.
Today I was advised to send in Motions which I will for this and other things. You think I should call the insurer, also?
Obviously, the NSW strata Act doesn’t apply in Queensland, so forget section 232 (it would have been good if you had reminded us you are in Queensland up front).
I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in Queensland strata affairs but you might find that a motion to repair the jetty under section 36 (Rights and responsibilities for common property) would get their attention and action under section 276 (below) might be effective if it didn’t.
As for calling the insurer, you could try without naming the scheme where you live, just on a hypothetical basis, to add some power to your elbow.
276 Orders of adjudicators
(1) An adjudicator to whom the application is referred may make an order that is just and equitable in the circumstances (including a declaratory order) to resolve a dispute, in the context of a community titles scheme, about—
(a) a claimed or anticipated contravention of this Act or the community management statement; or
(b) the exercise of rights or powers, or the performance of duties, under this Act or the community management statement…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.