Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
All of this should be covered by home and contents insurance. If he doesn’t have that, it’s his problem.
Regarding the notification, it’s hard to see how anyone could be expected to know that there were problems with his unit that weren’t replicated in others. Again, if he doesn’t have a friend in the building or nearby, that’s his problem too.
I would be as sympathetic as possible and maybe offer to hold a key for him (so people can get access if there’s anything similar in the future). But are you liable? I doubt it. And there’s nothing I can think of in the Act that even refers to such an eventuality.
The only thing would be if the electricity to his unit was permanently disconnected … but it wasn’t. It was only inside the unit that it was shut off.
You could run it past your strata insurers – you never know, they might cover it – but if they’re not on board, pass it straight back to the owner. If he couldn’t foresee a situation like this, and take suitable precautions, how can he expect you 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.
Section 139 (1) says this: A by-law must not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.
Given that all strata schemes must have insurance, isn’t expecting anyone hoping to undertake renovations to have that sort of money lying around (as well as for the costs of the renovations) all of those things above.
A $2000 bond is arguably reasonable because it would cover the initial costs of making a claim for damages. But $10,000? I would be knocking on NCAT’s door to get this overturned.
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 above reference is fascinating but the simple solution to Hamish’s problem is that the camera is on common property without permission and the strata committee should be demanding its removal.
Failure by the strata committee to do so can be pursued at NCAT, but the first step is a letter to either the committee or the strata manager requesting that they order its immediate removal.
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.
ScotlandX said:
If the owner has not been granted permission to undertake the works then his contractors are trespassing on the common property. Tell them they need to leave (we have done that before).
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!!
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 strata manager is being ridiculously unhelpful here (and I suggest you contact our sponsors Strata Answers to give you the right advice immediately).
I have to say that the process as outlined on the NCAT website is unclear. Firstly, anyone can apply for interim orders on this form and the secretary can get authority for this by a simple ring-around. The very idea that you have to wait three days before you can even apply for interim orders is ridiculous.
You also need to apply for mediation (not to go through the process but I think Interim Orders can only be attached to a full application and that requires mediation).
In the meantime, I would have the strata scheme’s lawyers immediately send the lot owners as “cease and desist” letter, informing them that if they continue with the fooring, they will be taken to NCAT where they will be ordered to lift the flooring and replace it with carpet.
Finally, if this was happening in my apartment block, I would arrange for their electricity to be mysteriously switched off (due to a power overload or something “mysterious and inexplicable” like that).
And I would also be calling the contractor and telling them that the work is a breach of your by-laws and if they don’t stop immediately, you will be reporting them to the strata contractors blacklist, and they can look forward to never getting another contract in a Sydney high rise again.
Now, cutting off the electricity supply is highly dubious and I don’t think there is a such a thing as a strata blacklist (but there should be). But if an owner deliberately flouts by-laws and breaks the rules, why should you be the only ones to be squeaky clean.
Act decisively now or face moths of misery trying to put this right. Oh, and it’s probably time to start looking for another strata manager.
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.
g said:
I don’t believe that either knowing about a camera, or the lack of action to have a camera removed would qualify as having “caused” the surveillance to be carried out.
Section 10 (6) – Notice to an employee is not required under this section in the case of camera surveillance at a workplace of the employer that is not a usual workplace of the employee.
OK, but why does my building have stickers on the entrance doors warning people that they are being videoed? Oh, is it because we have employees? And the OP doesn’t? You know this?
This is about a camera on common property surveilling people who don’t want to be filmed and our attempts to find a solution.
Thanks for correcting me on the name of the relevant legislation. As a layperson, I can say nothing else you have said changes my original response.
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.
Sir Humphrey said:
The differences between the strata acts of different jurisdictions are many, strange and mysterious!
Understatement of the year and it’s barely April!
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.
Presumably the video camera is attached to common property, so that’s one clear breach.
Also you are required to inform tradespeople and employees that they are being videoed. If there are no signs to that effect, then the owners corp – by allowing the camera on your property – is breaking the law.
So, if it is on CP, tell the resident to move it or you will. And you can inform them that their desire for greater security doesn’t override strata law.
But you could ask them if there is a specific reason for them requiring extra security, so that the owners corp can address the issue properly.
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 36 permits the strata committee, if so delegated, to make decisions on behalf of the owners corporation provided these decisions either don’t require a special resolution or the Owners Corporation at a general meeting have decided they can ONLY be made at a general meeting.One example would be the approval of minor building works (work that doesn’t impact significantly on common property). Section 110 of the Act says an owner “may carry out work for the purposes of minor renovations to common property in connection with the owner’s lot with the approval of the owners corporation given by resolution at a general meeting …”I believe (but I’m prepared to be proved wrong) that this is generally accepted to mean that the work can be done with approval from the committee (provided it has the standard delegation). The work mentioned includes everything from renovating a kitchen to installing wiring and beyond.36 Functions of strata committee(1) A strata committee has the functions conferred on it by or under this or any other Act.
(2) A decision of a strata committee is taken to be the decision of the owners corporation. However, in the event of a disagreement between the owners corporation and the strata committee, the decision of the owners corporation prevails.
(3) The following decisions cannot be made by the strata committee:
(a) a decision that is required by or under any Act to be made by the owners corporation by unanimous resolution or special resolution or in general meeting,
(b) a decision on any matter or type of matter that the owners corporation has determined in general meeting is to be decided only by the owners corporation in general meeting.
(4) An owners corporation may in general meeting continue to exercise all or any of the functions conferred on it by this Act or the by-laws even though a strata committee holds office.
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 interesting part of the above case – a matter in a district court, not NCAT – is the confusion caused by the “over-reach” of charging for legal costs when no such costs had been awarded by the Tribunal.
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.
What outcome do you want from this? If it’s just to get them to stop, how about a letter saying something like this:
I note that you have once again ignored my requests for privacy in my dealings with the Owners Corporation.
While I accept that owners are entitled to know who has been in correspondence with the committee, they can find this information out from the strata manager on request, and there is nothing in the Strata Management Act of 2015 that compels you to reveal private information on every occasion that you receive or send a letter.
In short, I believe this practice of “naming and shaming” could be interpreted as a form of bullying which I believe undercuts the committee members’ “qualified privilege” that protects them against legal action for defamation.
With that in mind, I ask you one last time to cease and desist from broadcasting my name and address to all owners. Any repetition and I will be forced to seek legal advice.
Now, this is just as likely to inflame matters as it is to resolve them, and you know the people you are dealing with better than we do. So perhaps you should contact the Redfern Legal Centre or the Tenants Union before you do anything else (including sending the above letter)
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 recently had a similar issue with my committee who love to “name and shame” anyone who suggests anything they don’t agree with.
You know how it goes – you make a suggestion which is addressed in one line as a topic and the response in the minutes is chapter and verse of all the arguments against and none for, making you look like an idiot for suggesting it. Of course, this deters people from making suggestions, especially any radically different changes to the way the scheme operates.
Surprise, surprise, my suggestion that correspondents be referred to by their Lot number, apart from situations where their identity was relevant to the discussion, was rejected by the committee on the grounds that it could lead to “discrimination”. What? In the grand parade of lame excuses, that would have to be right up at the front, beating the big bass drum of stupidity. I still can’t see how that could possible be a concern.
Back to the original question, this is something you need to bring up at committee and if need be, at your next AGM.
If the committee and strata manager are instructed to only refer to correspondents by their lot number, they will still have to show the correspondence to owners if requested, but at least it prevents the wide broadcast of people’s names and this subtly pernicious form of bullying that is all too prevalent in our strata schemes.
Oh, and the people you would complain to are Fair Trading – who are pretty much a complete waste of time in issues like 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.
Although the imposition of penalty interest charges is the default position, under section 85 (below) the OC – and I believe this means the committee, if they have been given those powers at a general meeting – can decide not to impose the penalty interest and can also organise a payment plan.
85 Interest, discounts on contributions and payment plans
(1) A contribution, if not paid when it becomes due and payable, bears until paid simple interest at an annual rate of 10% or, if the regulations provide for another rate, that other rate.
(2) Interest is not payable if the contribution is paid not later than one month after it becomes due and payable.
(3) However, an owners corporation may by resolution determine (either generally or in a particular case) that a contribution is to bear no interest.
(4) An owners corporation may, by resolution at a general meeting, determine (either generally or in a particular case) that a person may pay 10% less of a contribution levied if the person pays the contribution before the date on which it becomes due and payable.
(5) An owners corporation may, by resolution at a general meeting, agree to enter into payment plans, either generally or in particular cases, for the payment of overdue contributions. A payment plan is to be limited to a period of 12 months but a further plan may be agreed to by the owners corporation by resolution.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.