[Jimmy-T]

FDH said: Committees change, and so does the focus therefore anything which is just a wishlist is up to you to add. Things like roofing, doors, windows, fire safety, plumbing, WHS, air-con or other plant will be particularly noted.

All of the above is true, but they will also look at the age of your infrastructure (like lifts and air vent fans) and tell you when they are likely to need to be replaced.

 

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]

David 2708 said:

It isn’t all about rich people looking down on public housing. It’s everyday working people paying a mortgage who would like peace and quiet.

I understand and totally sympathise. However, our strata laws don’t allow us to create by-laws that discriminate or interfere with owners rights to let their properties. Banning social housing families would trigger challenges on both fronts.

That said, section 153 says owners must not permit occupants to create a hazard or nuisance.  So go after the landlords who have the power to evict tenants who breach by-laws.  And get NCAT orders to that effect, as they carry much stiffer penalties.  Eventually the landlords and their agents will be much more careful about who they let their property to.

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]

Sarcasm!?! That’s OK.  I’ll arrange an immediate refund … oh, sorry, I forgot, this is a free service.

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]

The development approval issued by your local council will stipulate the number of visitor parking spaces required (if any).

If you feel you need a vistor parking space and there isn’t one, look for an area of common property and designate it as such … and wait for the arguments to start when a resident uses it for their third car.

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]

You can’t ban social housing tenants – but you can make landlords responsible for their behaviour.

S 153. Owners, occupiers and other persons not to create nuisance

(1)  An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession, tenant or occupier of a lot in a strata scheme must not—

(a)  use or enjoy the lot, or permit the lot to be used or enjoyed, in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not),…

And you can also make them responsible for their own behaviour by resolutely issuing notices to comply and following through on them

But can we just get past the idea that social housing tenants are going to be a problem?  The worst problems I have encountered in strata have been with rich, entitled a-holes, who think they are superior because they’ve made a bit of money.

Social housing tenats probably don’t pay for live bands to perform all day and night at weekends, or have mobile discos that START at midnight.

 

 

 

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 would imagine that if the building had a no-pets policy and someone tried to bring one in, the cynophobia argument would be quite persuasive.  This would be less so in a block that already had pets that a cynophobic moved into.

Section 158 of the NSW Act (below) clearly allows even for animals permitted under by-laws to be removed if they cause a nuisance to other residents.  But why a cynophobic would move into a building that allows pets is beyong me.

That said, some of the decisions coming out of NCAT are bizarre or, at the very least, unpredictable.  They seem to be making it up as they go, then the Justice department expects strata owners to pay for their Members’ idiocies by correcting them on appeal.

The recent case in Queensland where a Member of their Tribunal announced that he was ignoring both the High Court of West Australia and the Privy Council in London and instead using as precedent a very minor and very specific low-level NCAT case in Sydney, illustrates perfectly that Tribunals across Australia are populated by incompetents and fools, ruling on the basis of their own bias rather than any adherence to or observance of law.

Section 158 Order for removal of an animal permitted under by-laws

(1)  The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, make an order against a person who is keeping an animal on a lot or common property in accordance with the by-laws for a strata scheme, if the Tribunal considers that the animal causes a nuisance or hazard to the owner or occupier of another lot or unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of another lot or of the common property.

(2)  The Tribunal may order that the person—

(a)  cause the animal to be removed from the parcel within a specified time, and be kept away from the parcel, or

(b)  within a time specified in the order, take such action as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, will terminate the nuisance or hazard or unreasonable interference.

 

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]

Councils will often also insist on an upgrade to balustrades if there is other work going on on or near the balcony, if it requires Development  Approval.  You might also check the terms of your strata insurance, to see if your building is still covered for accidents when elements of the building are known to be unsafe.

How might they be known to be unsafe?  Someone might propose a motion asking if they should be checked and upgraded if they’re not.

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]

My first questions are, is it an obstruction of a potential fire exit?  And is anyone concerned about it’s presence? If the answer to 1 is yes, politely tell them to move it.

If the answer to 2 is also yes, I feel pretty sure you’ll have a by-law about not leaving goods on, or obstructing, common property without written permission.

That’s all the legislation you need and in any case there’s unlikely to be any other laws specifically about this kind of thing although there may be local council fire regulations.

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 don’t know why you are asking our advice when you are such an expert on these matters.  Off you go and do it your way.  Good luck.

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]

“Nuisance” in strata law is a legal term with very narrow definitions – but it could be loosely defined as something that causes another owner harm.  When you think how long it took to get passive smoking accepted as a possible nuisance under strata law, then your cat and bird feeding probably isn’t going to qualify.

There is no default by-law on feeding stray cats or “bin chickens” but all you have to do is pass one.  “Residents and their guests are not permitted to feed wild birds or stray or visiting cats or dogs on common property, or encourage them to cross common property to be fed on lot property” would probably do it.

Have an EGM, pass the by-law, issue Notices To Comply then have them fined when they ignore them.  It’s time consuming but it’s a lot easier than trying to get NCAT orders by stretching the definitions in strata law.

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]

When you start to break it down, there are so few specific demands enshrined in the whole “enthusiastic amateurs” scenario it’s a wonder the system hasn’t collapsed completely before now.  Or maybe it has, in a thousand examples that were too small for us to notice them individually.

The argument against compulsory strata training for committee members, or even just office-bearers, is that a lot of good people who are already time poor wouldn’t volunteer in the first place.

Similarly, putting a time limit on office-bearers’ incumbency would cut out a lot of good experienced people.

Meanwhile the law specifically excludes payment of committee members in advance, although they may be paid retrospectively for work done in the previous year.

There must be a mechanism that could be adopted within the parameters of the law as it stands.  Perhaps it could be that the Owners Corp passes a by-law that, if an office bearer has attended a specific number of meetings in a year, and has undertaken at least one recognised strata training course, they may, then – and only then – submit an invoice for services rendered at the next AGM, which may be approved for payment, in total or in part, by a super-majority of owners at the meeting.

Rorters will always find a way of rorting, but this provides a way to reward people who go above and beyond, to the benefit of all the other owners.  And if they didn’t do all they claimed they had, they wouldn’t get the votes.

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]

The ATO will happily accept information about anyone raising income and potentially not declaring it for tax purposes.

The local council will do nothing becasue they don’t have the financial wherewithall to pursue planning breaches of this nature (which is precisely how Airbnb gets into residential markets all around the world).

And NCAT love videos, emails, diaries, written records and recordings as evidence of breaches – otherwise it’s just “he said, she said”.

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 in favour of strata committee members being paid for their work provided that have:

1. Completed a recognised course in strata committee management (with a refresher every two years)
2. Attended a certain number of meetings every year (or not missed too many)
3. Are never more than 14 days behind with their levies
4. That the payments be on a scale set by Fair Trading based on the number of units in the scheme.
5. That the payments approval be renewed by special resolution (75 per cent of those voting) at every AGM.

I think that would allow those who are genuinely interested in the well-being of the building to be rewarded for their efforts, but make it easy to get rid of them when the payments, and staying in power to maintain them, become more important than the work.

And let’s not kid ourselves, there is an element of self-satisfaction in doing the work, as well as an almost primal urge not to allow some newbie to come in and undo all the hard work we’ve put in for years.

In this era of extremes, it’s sometimes hard to find balance, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

 

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]

The question of improperly announced meetings is less significant than the decisions that are made in them.

Nevertheless, there is a system prescribed by the Act that is there for a reason, mainly so that everyone knows what’s going on and can contribute or object if they wish.

In the case of the above “improper” meeting, I would be tempted to write to the committee members and strata managers, and say something like this:

In view of the fact that last month’s meeting was held without due notice or a published agenda as required by the Strata Schemes Management Act of 2015, any decisions made should be considered null and void.

In future, I would ask the secretary (and strata manager) to ensure that the meetings are properly announced, agendas distributed and proper minutes issued, under the terms of the Act, so that all owners have the opportunity to attend and observe, if they so wish, and that we know what is being discussed about our buildings and can respond accordingly.

Apart from being good management, this will obviate the need for expensive, time consuming and disruptive challenges at NCAT when significant decisions have been made at improperly conducted meetings.

I also call on the committee to inform the owners that such oversights will not be repeated in future.

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]

Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?

The simple fact is that the landlord has a duty of care that they haven’t even attempted to address.

If it were me, I would tell the rental agent that if I wasn’t released from the lease I would seek temination of the lease, reduced rent from the time I first complained and all costs associated with raising the issue.

But you may wish to tread more softly.  Get legal advice.

 

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