Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Does anyone know where in the relevant ACT legislation it says that permission (to take photos) is needed from the property owner (I’d like to include this reference in the request to the committee).
Firstly, the only laws that I know are federal privacy laws and even they can be vague and confusing. This article is helpful, though.
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 did make a comment under this post a few days ago not seen. Just bringing it to your attention.
Is it the one just above? Otherwise I fear it has fallen into a black hole of internet incompetence. Please resend if you have it on file.
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.
Thanks for the endorsement. I found this link which lays out the aftermath of the owners’ standing up to the developer in a similar case. On that occasion eight or nine years ago, the developer set things off by demanding that the handful of initial owners pay equal shares of the cost of running the building, including watering extensive landscaped grounds.
The right thing to have done would have been to have the initial AGM, agree on the budget and charge the owners according to their Unit Entitlements. One other thing that developers can’t do is to run up debts that the incoming Owners Corporation has to pay.
The best thing that could happen here is that a strata manager gets involved – but not one of those notorious ones that are more interested in their next gig with the developer than looking after the owners.
FYI: That item above is still there but some of the links from it are broken or the material has been deleted. Hey, it was nearly 10 years ago
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.
There’s a lot of information about how committee members are supposed to behave, and what they’re allowed to decide, if you know where to look.
This, from the Qld Act (my emphases):
Section 100(5): The committee must act reasonably in making a decision.
Section 101 (2): the committee must put into effect the lawful decisions of the body corporate.
Section 101A: A committee member is not civilly liable for an act done or omission made in good faith and without negligence in performing the person’s role as a committee member.Schedule 1A: Code of conduct for committee voting members
- Commitment to acquiring understanding of Act, including this code
A committee voting member must have a commitment to acquiring an understanding of this Act, including this code of conduct, relevant to the member’s role on the committee.
2. Honesty, fairness and confidentiality
(1) A committee voting member must act honestly and fairly in performing the member’s duties as a committee voting member.
From a Qld Government factsheet: Restrictions on committee decisions
The committee cannot make decisions about:
- changing the rights, privileges or obligations of lot owners
- decisions that must be made by ordinary resolution, special resolution, resolution without dissent, or majority resolution
I would be writing to the committee and telling them that now they know what they’re allowed to do, they will not be acting in good faith, and therefore will lose protection from personal liability, if they ignore the law. Previous erroneous decisions would be covered by ignorance, but future breaches would be negligence.
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.
It seems to me that the vehicles from the other blocks have contributed to the wear and tear on the drain cover so it seems only right that they should contribute a share of the repairs.
I would contact their chairs and secretaries and tell them that you need to fix the drain covers and invite them to make their own suggestions about who to hire to do it, if only to make them feel connected and part of the process.
If there’s nothing in writing that makes them legally liable, they might get all bush lawyer about it and refuse to contribute. But most people are generally more reasonable than that and just asking them to share the cost, maybe on a pro rata basis, may get you the result you seek.
If not, you could tell them that since they don’t want to be involved they will not be given advanced warning of when the driveway will be closed so they can get their cars out. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to 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.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Queensland’s body corporate laws are so arcane and complex that I am reluctant to even offer a response. Fortunately I found this online which explains a lot.
It seems that changes to common property require a special resolution at a general meeting and that would seem to apply here. I don’t think that approval for something that changes the look of the building can be approved by the executive committee either.
Your committee really needs to get professional advice on this before anyone changes anything. But in most states, changes to common property and the look of the building require special resolutions at a general meeting.
And here are a couple of standard Queensland by-laws.
5 Damage to common property
(1) An occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, mark, paint, drive nails, screws or other objects into, or otherwise damage or deface a structure that forms part of the common property.
8 Appearance of lot
(1) The occupier of a lot must not, without the body corporate’s written approval, make a change to the external appearance of the lot unless the change is minor and does not detract from the amenity of the lot and its surrounds.
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.
Where does that leave the poor applicant?
I would imagine that this would leave the applicant in a very strong position. I can’t imagine any NCAT Member ruling in favour of a party that doesn’t bother to turn up for the hearing.
Also, if one party has hired a lawyer and the other party doesn’t show up the Tribunal can award costs on a number of grounds, including (according to this NCAT fact sheet):
Section 60(3) of the Act explains the types of special circumstances in which the Tribunal can
decide that someone else should pay another party’s costs. They area) A party has conducted their case in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another
party
b) A party has been responsible for unreasonably making the case take longer
c) The relative strength of a party’s case or whether the case was hopeless
d) The nature and complexity of the case
e) A party’s case was frivolous, vexatious or misconceived
f) A party has not cooperated with the Tribunal in providing a just, quick and cheap
resolution of the real issues in dispute
g) A party has not followed Tribunal orders or directions
h) Any other matter the Tribunal thinks is relevant.However, costs can only be awarded if you have incurred professional fees and are being represented by a lawyer (or similar). If you are representing yourself, costs may not be awarded.
If costs are awarded against the owners corp, they have to raise a special levy from which the opposing owner must be excluded.
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.
Before we go any further I want to point out that this is almost certainly related to this thread and, if so, that’s where it should have been posted. If that’s not the case, please let me know.Apart from that, when I read this at first, not yet making that connection, it struck me that this was an attempt to justify a dog-in-a-manger response to a legitimate application for work approval. Okay, so one owner was smarter than the others and got a grant that they didn’t know about. Big deal!For those who haven’t read the other thread, our Flatchatter was awarded a government grant to install new double-glazed balcony doors, the OC approved the work but the committee is refusing to let the work go ahead. The government won’t release the grant until the committee allows the work.What really needs to happen here is that all parties stop taking pot shots at each other and just get on with doing what needs to be done so EVERYBODY can enjoy apartment living the way they should. This should not be about who did or said what, or why, in the past. It’s time to draw a line under all this and resolve it as amicably as possible. No harm, no foul. Now back to the post in question…You’ve probably heard whispers about the NSW Transport Noise Reduction Grants … In our building, one lucky owner — living in one of the quietest units — somehow managed to secure the grant. Thirty-five other owners are now demanding the same treatment. Who wouldn’t? Free double glazing!
Okay, so what’s the problem?
What about the pensioner in Mascot who lives under a flight path, shaking teacups every time a jet takes off — and has no idea this obscure grant even exists?
That has absolutely nothing to do with your block and should not influence decisions your committee makes.
Our strata committee has raised serious questions: Was this application in line with the intent of the grant — to help those truly suffering from transport noise?
That’s not for the committee to decide – the department that approved the grant makes that decision, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
Shouldn’t the lots facing the major highway be prioritised instead?
Did they apply for the grant and were refused?
And now the kicker: does the recipient have to comply with the Design and Building Practitioners Act (NSW) 2020? Some owners argue yes, however the works exceed $5,000, so compliance is mandatory. Others argue no — “it’s a grant, not strata money.”
It doesn’t matter where the money came from. If the cost of the work is over a prescribed amount and involves building work, the DBPA applies.
No one wants to pay for legal advice, and the committee is divided. Should a by-law be required? Should Owners Corporation funds ever be used?
What would you be using OC funds for? To fight this at NCAT?
What started as a simple government grant has exploded into a strata showdown, raising questions of equity, compliance, and ethics.
If it’s a simple government grant, why has no one else applied for or received it? Equity, compliance and ethics? It seems to me that the only thing in question here is compliance, and if the installation has been approved, the strata committee should comply. From the outside, it seems like envy rather than equity is in play here, and personal vendettas rather than good practice. Tell me I’m wrong and I will correct ththe misconception here.
There is no “explosion” … just a “small war, not many dead.”
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, this is clearly related to this thread but I’m going to allow it, because it opens up an interesting, entirely separate discussion. What happens if you take your strata committee to Fair Trading and mediation either fails or they don’t turn up, so you then take them to NCAT and you hire lawyers (because they have threatened you that they will) but they don’t show up for that either?
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. Is it appropriate to ask this forum for recommendations/suggestions for a companies in Sydney who could do these repairs please?
Flatchatters can make their recommendations using direct messaging, which should appear as “send a message” in the top left of post windows.
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.
We will get other quotes to replace the other windows and will ask Windowline. I assume they meet the minimum requirements regarding licenses (licensed builder class 2), insurance etc
They have all that and more – they are brand leaders in this area. Mention Flat Chat and they’ll look after you.
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 reply was modified 1 year ago by -.
The first thing that occurs is that surely this was a defect that should have been identified and fixed in the first six years of the building.
Secondly, I think your strata manager is right. It needs a fully qualified and insured professional for a job that big and you could do a lot worse that approach our sponsors Windowline for a quote. Be sure to mention Flat Chat when you do.
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 reply was modified 1 year ago by -.
You can take a picture of anything or even anyone provided you are on public land or your land and it’s not for nefarious purposes. You can even take a picture of someone inside their home, from your garden (but not theirs). What you need to consider is where you are standing when you take the picture. Common property, such as a driveway, is not public land but the pavement outside the driveway is. That said, taking a picture of a car when you are on common property isn’t going to upset anyone except the person whose car is blocking the way. And you could just ask your committee for permission to do so, just to be on the safe side.
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.
As our strata manager seems to have given us incorrect advice re section 132c have we grounds to postpone this paper general meeting?
I think you have grounds to postpone the meeting until the strata manager provides a written explanation of how they came to the conclusion that this was an accessibility issue for the whole strata scheme. It sounds like an internal chair lift would solve any accessibility challenges.
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.