Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You could be right but in my experience, what’s easier to fix, in descending order, is doors, dogs and dolts.
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.
Kenuppa said:
My intention was to create a By-Law to regulate the cost sharing between owner and Body Corporate, when cost sharing was appropriate.
That’s not what you said in your initial post. It’s not a “win-win” when one party has no need to fix anything in the first place.
In fact, if the membrane was already in need of repair, and the the tiles would need to be lifted to do so, then the entire cost – membrane and tile replacement – would fall to the owners corp.
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.
The first thing that occurs to me is that it’s the door, not the dog, that’s the major problem. From what you say, the runners need to be replaced. That’s an owners corp responsibility and they should get on to it pronto before the rollers damage the tracks.
Generally speaking, however, your committee has two months to respond (or not) before you can begin action to compel them to do something under Section 232 (2) of the Act.
But I would think fixing the door runners and retraining the dog (there are professionals who will do that) may be the best way forward.
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.
Probably the first and easiest thing to do is to print and stick the Flat Chat Move it or Lose It poster to the windshield of the car.
And have a look at this previous post on the topic … and this one too, for good measure.
In simple terms, provided you fulfill the requirements in the strata Regulations, you can have the vehicle towed at the car owner’s expense. Our poster has been designed to comply with the Regs provided it is filled in correctly.
But I reckon it will solve your problem … and all for the cost of a sheet of A4 paper.
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 think the intention of the Stock and Station reference is to differentiate professional strata managers from owners who manage the strata scheme on a voluntary basis.
You also said:
Now Leasing agents can be on the Strata committee as well as building mangers, that’s just asking for conflicts of interests to arise.
The law was changed so that leasing agents and building managers couldn’t be on the committee unless they were also owners. The possibilities of conflict of interest have therefore been significantly reduced.
I strongly recommend that you seek some sort of professional advice from either a strata lawyer or our sponsors Strata Answers as you seem to be misinterpreting various laws and creating confusion in your own thinking.
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.
Strata insurance generally doesn’t cover expenses caused by building work that is due to repairs and maintenance and not the result of an “event” or accident.
However, regardless of whether or not there was insurance coverage, the owners corp as a whole should have contibuted to the cost of relocation of residents during the building work. Everyone was benefitting – why should only a few residents suffer financially?
If I were one of the evacuated owners, I’d be hitting them with a bill right now.
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.
Bunyip wrote:
My world is dealing with a strata manager that owns 3 lots with another lot owner who is the insurance broker of our scheme. According to the SSMA 2015 this is somewhat not allowed.
Are you sure? It’s certainly not healthy but is it illegal? Section 32 of the Act says building managers and other people who have business with the owners corp and who are NOT owners can’t be members of the Strata Committee.
Why do you think what they are doing is illegal?
Just make sure all your proxies are properly lined up and fully paid up before your AGM as it sounds like these people will challenge you if they feel their position is threatened.
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, I have been told by a former Strata Community Australia member that when they took proof of a (non-SCA) strata manager’s highly dubious and possibly illegal conduct to Fair Trading, the response was that their behaviour was “standard industry practice” and therefore there was no question of them having their licence cancelled.
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.
Just because maintenance plans are only mandatory for large schemes in Victoria doesn’t mean smaller schemes can’t have them.
Propose to your strata committee that the building employs a surveyor to establish and prioritise future maintenance work, then you can budget accordingly.
Then propose a by-law that only licensed and certifted tradespeople be used for any work done.
Obviously you are going to get some resistance from the person who wants to avoid repairs and then do them on the cheap but if you can persuade enough other owners and /or committee members that this is a false economy – the value of your property is deteriorating – then you should be able to out-vote them.
The opinion of a couple of local real estate agents about how much poor maintenance is costing the owners in dimished vale would help.
Having said that, arguments about re-sale value will cut no mustard with owners who are not planning to sell any time soon (like, I guess, your “head honcho”) in which case you may have to get political and either out-vote them or vote them out.
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’s not a “win-win” if the Body Corporate doesn’t particularly want or need a new membrane – it’s free ride for the renovator.
And yes, you would be well advised to seek legal advice if you are writing your own by-laws from scratch
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.
Why would the body corporate pay for the replacement of the membrane when it wouldn’t need replacing if the tiles weren’t being changed?
So perhaps your by-law could read:
When an owner chooses to retile their balcony or courtyard, including replacement of the waterproof membrane, the Body Corporate will only pay the portion of cost applicable to the replacement of the waterproof membrane if the membrane is already damaged by normal wear and tear or some other prior unrelated event for which the Body Corporate would normally be liable.
I suggest you contact the Unit Owners Association of Queensland to see if they have any off-the-peg 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.
Getting There wrote:
There is a so much more but I think it is best if I can private message to discuss this.
Sorry, but that’s not what this forum is about. One of the main reasons we insist on anonymity is so that other owners and residents can benefit from the discussions here and you can explain the details of your issues without potentially defaming anyone. We really can’t offer private consultations.
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 missed “prescribed”.
A prescribed owners corporation is one that governs a building of 100 units or more (as defined HERE). It is similar to a “large” block in NSW. There are some pretty big blocks in Victoria.
I think it’s also the case that large blocks in Vic must have strata managers, so the problem described above might not arise anyway.
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.
Section 46 (below) of Victoria’s Owners Corporation Act states absolutely clearly that the OC must maintain and repair common property.
Sections 36 to 45 of the Act also state that you have to establish a maintenance plan and then provide the funds to effect the plan.
It’s pretty clear. Your committee (and owners corp) need to survey common property, make a plan then raise the funds – either by levies or loans – to make it happen.
46. Owners corporation to repair and maintain common property
An owners corporation must repair and maintain—
(a) the common property; and
(b) the chattels, fixtures, fittings and services related to the common property or its enjoyment.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.
The previous post was all making perfect sense until this:
The strata committee can also reverse the motion (at a properly constituted SC meeting), again if a motion is received from the aggrieved owner.
Given that the Act specifically says that decisions by the OC at a general meeting supersede those made by the committee, I’m not sure that’s true (I’m also not sure it isn’t!).
However, there asre a couple of things that should be taken into consideration here.
Firstly, under Section 25 of the Act, you only have 28 days after a meeting to claim that the decision was invalid becasue you were denied a vote. Even then, if the missing person wasn’t given the agenda, their vote would still have to have made a difference for that challenge to stand.
Also, if the complainer and the waverer now want to revisit this at committee, you can halt that discussion even happening under Schedule 2, Section 9.3 (below) which means that one-third of all owners (by unit entitlement) can petition a committee, before the meeting, not to even discuss a motion on the agenda.
The actual motion under discussion seems to be strange – what’s the difference between “the strata” paying for painting work and the owners sharing the cost? (I think I know the answer but I’m curious).
Finally, you may have solid grounds for getting rid of your strata manager. You might want to consider that option.
SCHEDULE 2, Section 9: Decisions at meetings
(3) Decisions to have no effect if opposed by more than specified owners
A decision of a strata committee has no force or effect if, before the decision is made, notice is given to the secretary of the owners corporation by one or more owners, the sum of whose unit entitlements exceeds one-third of the aggregate unit entitlement, that the making of the decision is opposed by those 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.