Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
And one other thing – if the strata manager organises the insurance, they will get a nice commission from the insurer. Did they mention that?
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.
Send them a bill. If they refuse to pay, explain all the additional costs they are going to face when you add up the damage done to common property (stretch the truth if need be), the overtime for the building manager and the cost of the debt collection – which will fall to them.
And point out that section 122 (3) allows the OC to enter a lot to conduct work in an emergency.
122 Power of owners corporation to enter property in order to carry out work(1) An owners corporation for a strata scheme may, by its agents, employees or contractors, enter on any part of the parcel of the scheme for the purpose of carrying out the following work—
(a) work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation in accordance with this Act (including work relating to window safety devices and rectification work carried out under Part 11),
(b) work required to be carried out by the owners corporation by a notice given to it by a public authority,
(c) work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation by an order under this Act.
(2) An owners corporation for a strata scheme may, by its agents, employees or contractors, enter on any part of the parcel for the purpose of determining whether any work is required to be carried out by the owners corporation in accordance with this Act.
(3) In an emergency, the owners corporation may enter any part of the parcel for those purposes at any time.
s
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.
OK, kids. Back to your corners. This discussion is now closed.
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.
By the way, EnterSandman purports to be an authority on ‘strata living’ yet doesn’t even get his terminology right.
Does he purport to be an authority? This feels increasingly like it’s a personal squabble being played out in this forum. I’m ready to pull the plug on 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.
I was about to cite section 43 of the Act – the “move it or lose it” clause, but it has been repealed.
However, I think the owners corp has an overriding responsibility to maintain access to fire safety equipment and if this bike is blocking it, I would move it now and let the bike owner choose between wearing the cost of a new lock or facing action for endangering the residents of the building.
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.
Wow! Fair Trading doesn’t want to give a definition! How … um … tediously predictable.
Here’s my definition, for what it’s worth. Anything that impacts common property that might compromise the waterproofing of the bathroom or kitchen – even if only in a worst-case scenario – is a major renovation requiring guarantees that can only be enforced if there is a special resolution.
So changes to the bathroom floor and/or walls adjoining other lots and common property are usually major renovations.
Simply changing a shower screen probably would not be unless you had to replace tiles under it or where it was attached to an adjoining wall.
Changing kitchen cupboard doors could easily be considered a cosmetic change (permission not required) but changing the cupboards could be a non-major renovation (requiring permission that could not be unreasonably refused).
I can understand why Fair Trading rarely offers advice since, when they do, they often get it wrong.
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.
Yes, I agree with Kaindub. I just worry that this prospective strata manager is conflating the idea that they legally must have strata insurance (which is true) with a sense that they also legally must have a strata manager to run it (which is not). Purely on the basis of a lack of honesty, if that’s the case, I would say maybe yes to a strata manager but definitely no to this one.
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 do like the idea of asking nominees to present what they’ve done in the last year / what they can bring in the new year. I assume this would happen during the AGM? And then everyone votes for their favourite candidates?
To avoid the candidates from being over-prepared, I would simply ask at the beginning of the election part of the proceedings, that everyone who is nominating introduce themselves to the owners and outline brieflky what they’ve done and what they plan to do.
Speaking of voting in this case, how would that work? For any agenda item during the AGM? Does every owner in attendance equal 1 vote?
Voting for ordinary motions are on one vote per lot unless someone calls for a poll vote, which would done based on unit entitlements. Votes on special resolutions and elections should be done on unit entitlements.
And what about owners with multiple lots – is it 1 vote per lot, or just 1 for the owner?
It’s a vote or votes per lot.
We also have a developer/builder that still owns 15 lots – so would they have 15 ‘votes’ as well?
That depends on how many lots there are in the building. If the developer still has more than 50 percent of the unit entitlements, their voting power is reduced to one-third of its previous value.
And can each owner bring 3 proxies, or is it just 1? I have received all sorts of conflicting info about the above, so I’m well and truly muddled!
For schemes of up to 20 units, each owner can carry one proxy. After that, it’s one proxy vote per 20 lots, which means, in effect, its actually only one proxy vote per owner up to 39 lots. From 40 to 59 lots it’s two proxies. From 60 to 79 lots it’s three proxies per owner, and so on. Why? Because you can’t have fractions of lot owners.
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.
OK, first things first. Strata insurance is compulsory in Tasmania (as it is everywhere else in Australia). However, you really don’t need a strata manager to arrange it for you.
Your mum may find that once strata insurance is in place, she can reduce the premiums on her home and content insurance and not have to pay any more. The strata secretary can arrange all this very easily. It doesn’t require a strata manager to do it.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the prospective strata managers merely said that hiring them would be a good idea. You would then want to look at their charges, including “extras” (like every time they lift the phone in some management contracts).
But it sounds like this strata manager is trying to scare and maybe even deceive owners into taking their contract and for that reason alone, I would send them packing.
So yes, you need strata insurance and you the owners should look at three quotes and choose the best.
If they feel they really need a strata manager – and maybe they do if they haven’t even got round to formally creating a body corporate – they should again get three quotes, look out for “extras” (we call then Schedule B charges in NSW) and only sign a contract with someone with whom they feel comfortable.
And even though this is not a legal requirement in Tasmania, I would not sign any contract for more than three years. That is more than enough time for all parties to discover if they are suited to each other.
It may be that the strata manager mentioned’s intentions were “lost in translation” but if there was the slightest hint of coercion or deception, I wouldn’t let them anywhere near a contract.
By the way, if the other owners at a properly constituted committee or general meeting decided to go along with this, your mum would be obliged to follow.
The question is, if there is no body corporate, how can they have a properly constituted meeting?
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.
As I’m sure you now realise, the legal issue here is that you installed what was essentially private property on common property. That should have been done under a common property by-law, ascribing responsibility for and maintenance of the cameras, and the common property to which they are attached, either to the owners corporation or to you (and/or other interested owners).
There is no law that I know of that says that becasue the cameras have been there for however many years that they must be allowed to stay.
However, you can propose a retrospective by-law that does whatever it is the owners want that would allow the cameras to stay.
Failing that, you could seek orders under Section 126 or Section 130 of the Act. The former allows NCAT to compel the owners corp to pass certain by-laws. The latter allows the Tribunal to order the owners corporation to acquire personal property when they have refused to do so.
But before you get to that stage, you really need to sit down with the chair and the committee and ask them what their objection to the cameras is. If its simply a procedural matter, then that can be resolved by tying up the loose ends via by-laws at your next AGM.
If there is some more fundamental issue, then you may have to go to a general meeting of the owners corp, or NCAT to have it resolved. And you may have to request an interim order at NCAT if there is any indication that the chairman will order the cameras to be removed before the issue is settled.
Certainly under section 126 of the Act, the tribunal may take into account whether or not you had any prior approval. If you can get some committee members to at least concede that these matters were discussed before the cameras went in, that should work in your favour.
But I would take the softly, softly approach on this. Don’t back the chairman into a corner where he feels he has to stick by the letter of the law to defend his authority. Ask him what it is that he really wants. Only if he’s being totally unreasonable should you then pull out the big guns.
s
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 fact, another committee member has implied that … we shouldn’t do anything about it unless it also affects others.
Anything that affects common property affects all owners to some extent, even if it’s only a potential financial liabilty rather than having a direct impact on their lives.
Any by-law should be directed at managing the access to common property, rather than directed at any single individual (if possible).
Doing nothing will come back to bite you when the new owners sells or lets the property, and includes the car space in the deal, using phrases like “accepted practice” when your committee objects.
And here’s another thought – have you considered installing car stackers or a turntable to make better use of the space, including having a parking spot for each lot. You could then sell the spaces to owners to cover the cost of the installation and increase the value of each unit considerably for minimal shared cost.
Have a look here: https://www.turntables.com.au/car-turntables/
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.
“as frustrating as lint in a clothes dryer left on a window sill”, EnterSandman? That sounds a bit… fluffy. Care to explain?
Yeah, I was wondering about that. A little personal signalling going on here? Or is it some pop culture reference that has passed me by. Sounds Seinfeldian.
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 see you’ve turned this into an editorial. Good, but at this point in time there’s an incomplete paragraph.
Good catch. Thanks for that. Fixed now and no one will ever know.
Seems strange that there was no attempt at mediation or Notice To Comply. Enforcement of a Notice to Comply is one of the very few actions at NCAT that doesn’t have an attempted mediation as a prerequisite.
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.