Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Puddn said:
Are kitchen floor tiles considered to be ‘wet’ areas?No – if they were they would have a drain in the floor.
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:
This thread is a year old?Yup … but the problem isn’t going away any time soon, from what I hear.
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.
Firstly, a vexatious complainer or litigant is someone who is constantly taking action against others, often knowing they have little or no chance of success, purely because of the the disruption having to defend themselves cauises the other people. You are nowhere close to that, even if you persist with a legitimate complaint.
There will almost certainly be a by-law that prevents people from causing a nuisance on common property, as well as laws that forbid people from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of their lot.
You really want to nip this in the bud but it sounds like these people are not particularly reasonable so it may be hard to avoid it escalating.
A polite letter expressing your concerns might be the first step but it may alsu light the fuse.
After that, send a letter to your committee but be prepared to take the matter to Fair Trading for mediation (which is now free).
After mediation your choice is to go to a Tribunal or to seek orders at your local court.
In the past the police have told us that excessively loud voices at the wrong times in the wrong places can be subject to noise abatement orders.
Regarding the “common property” windows – please tell me they weren’t the windows of their homes! They may be common property but you aren’t entitled to touch them.
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.
@Choice said:
Sir Humphrey I think you may be referring to SCA (Strata Community Australia) … from what I was told at the college … SCA is no longer as relevant in the industry as they once were.That’s a very big call. For all the issues I have with SCA (not least that their Queensland chapter supports the institutional corruption of pre-sales of management rights) I think they are more relevant than they have ever been. The difference is that now there are other voices – like the Owners Corporation Network – where there was none before.
Your biggest challenge will be getting the professional indemnity required to set up a responsible business on your own. But SCA will provide you with a lot of support in terms of contracts and professional training. I wouldn’t dismiss them on the strength of what a college lecturer said.
SCA aren’t as exclusively relevant to strata owners as they once were, but they are the voice of the industry and you can bet Fair Trading has them on speed dial.
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.
@Stevecro said:
I am not sure whether a by-law which allowed an OC to charge those who don’t have email addresses for services of notices would stand up in a Tribunal or Court. It could be argued by those affected that it is harsh, unconscionable or oppressive as many elderly and not so elderly people do not have computers or email addresses.I don’t want to pick a fight here but it seems odd to me that you are telling people to “toughen up” and not adhere too strictly to the letter of the law on sending out notices (with which I agree) but shying away from a measure designed to get those who have email addresses to use them.
Everybody gets charged, albeit indirectly, for the delivery of “dead tree” notices. All you need to do is offer a discount to those who allow email delivery (the same way that you can offer a discount on levies to those who pay promptly or in advance).
The reason is obvious – sending out emails costs nothing, hence the discount.
I don’t even think you need a by-law. It’s just the committee acting in a way that benefits the whole community and doesn’t affect anyone adversely since they would just be paying their share of delivery costs anyway.
There is no surer way of focussing owners’ minds on issues than putting a price on them. I can’t see a discount for email deliveries being effectivelly challenged in either an AGM or a Tribunal.
Is offering a discount to owners who can afford to pay their levies in advance unfair or discriminatory against those who can’t? Whatever we think, the government says no.
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 is an increasingly significant issue in apartments and City of Sydney has been conducting surveys to discover if people want the facility and what form it should take. CoS has more apartments than any other council area in Australia, so their findings are significant.
Apparently most inner-city apartment residents think they will move to electric in the next 10 years (partly because they travel less than 50 km a week by car) and the majority of residents favour a user-pays metered system, possibly utilising visitor parking bays.
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.
@Tim349VicPl said:
Why would you be washing your car on common property?Isn’t that cause a slip hazard on common property?
Really? have you ever tried to wash a car in a car space (without getting the other cars wet). Or in a garage? As for the “slip hazard”? Please!! This is the kind of thing guaranteed to get strata residents’ hackles up – or is that what you are trying to 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.
@Ziggy said:
I thought the Minor Renovations new Bylaw was about doing minor works on common property eg putting in a reverse cycle aircon.I presume the bathroom is not common property. The weatherproofing may well be common property but not the works unless you are affecting a load bearing wall.
I’m afraid you are off the mark on a number of issues.
First of all, I was responding to the description of works in the initial post.
Secondly, it doesn’t have to be a load-bearing wall (there are actually very few of those in modern buildings constructed with concrete slabs).
External and walls adjoining other properties are common property. Floors, ceiling, external doors and balconies are common property too.
Getting back to bathrooms, tiles on an external wall (a wall that is common property) are also common property. Tiles on internal wall aren’t.
The compexity and potential dangers in a bathroom reno is one of the reasons why a kitchen renovation is specified in section 110 of the Act as a minor renovation but a bathroom reno isn’t (see below, specifically at section 7[d]).
110 Minor renovations by owners(1) The owner of a lot in a strata scheme 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. A special resolution authorising the work is not required.
(2) The approval may be subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the owners corporation and cannot be unreasonably withheld by the owners corporation.
(3) Minor renovations include but are not limited to work for the purposes of the following:
(a) renovating a kitchen,
(b) changing recessed light fittings,
(c) installing or replacing wood or other hard floors,
(d) installing or replacing wiring or cabling or power or access points,
(e) work involving reconfiguring walls,
(f) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(4) Before obtaining the approval of the owners corporation, an owner of a lot must give written notice of proposed minor renovations to the owners corporation, including the following:
(a) details of the work, including copies of any plans,
(b) duration and times of the work,
(c) details of the persons carrying out the work, including qualifications to carry out the work,
(d) arrangements to manage any resulting rubbish or debris.
(5) An owner of a lot must ensure that:
(a) any damage caused to any part of the common property by the carrying out of minor renovations by or on behalf of the owner is repaired, and
(b) the minor renovations and any repairs are carried out in a competent and proper manner.
(6) The by-laws of a strata scheme may provide for the following:
(a) additional work that is to be a minor renovation for the purposes of this section,
(b) permitting the owners corporation to delegate its functions under this section to the strata committee.
(7) This section does not apply to the following work:
(a) work that consists of cosmetic work for the purposes of section 109,
(b) work involving structural changes,
(c) work that changes the external appearance of a lot, including the installation of an external access ramp,
(d) work involving waterproofing,
(e) work for which consent or another approval is required under any other Act,
(f) work that is authorised by a by-law made under this Part or a common property rights by-law,
(g) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(8) Section 108 does not apply to minor renovations carried out in accordance with this section.
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:
I would expect the OC to obtain quotes for reinstatement and then reach a figure that the OC is willing to pay toward the works. The amount has to be based on something.Absolutely. The other owner can’t get a whole bathroom refurb paid for just because their tiles are dodgy.
The owner needs to have it explained to them that there are dozen ways the committee can hold this up, potentially for years – and the owner still won’t get what he or she wants – if they don’t apply a little commonsense to the proceedings.
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 is very common in this kind of situation for the owner of a bathroom that is being renovated to take a payment for the component of the renovation that the OC would have to undertake anyway (fixing a leaking membrane) while renovating the whole bathroom.
The OC is entitled to ensure that the tiles are fit for purpose and that the work is done by a licensed operator with valid warranties attached. They might only pay for like-for-like tiles (allowing the owner to upgrade to a more expensive tile at their own expense). But otherwise, this has to be seen as a win-win.
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.
You have a legal obligation to deliver agendas and minutes so even if you had a by-law requiring people to provide their email addresses you would still have to post them out to the recalcitrants.
Now, I don’t know if this is entirely legal but I think you would get away with it … how about if you made the delivery of documents a line item on your building’s strata levies.
You would want it to be a substantial figure but you allow a discount of that amount for people who registered their email addresses and agreed in writing to that this was an accepted method of delivery.
So, basically you are starting from the point of view that everybody gets their agendas etc delivered and pays, say, $20 for each meeting. However, those who accept emails get a $20 discount.
Or don’t even have it as a line item. Just offer a discount of a substantial amount for everyone who accepts notices by email.
It’s not so much user pays as non-user doesn’t pay. That could work.
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 is something that, if you can’t agree, you will only be able to have resolved at NCAT – however, your determination to take the issue there might focus the minds of your committee.
As a general rule, the OC only has to replace like for like, something that will be virtually impossible as the original tiles are several years old and probably aren’t available any more.
Failing that, they have to install tiles that are fit for purpose – and that’s where you can apply for mediation through Fair Trading, with the stated intention of taking them to the Tribunal, if need be.
The thought of having to defend their position in the Tribunal may be enough to erase any concerns about additional expense. Be reasonable but be tough and you might be able to achieve a suitable compromise.
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 are the questions you are getting? Removing the tiles and replacing them with another hard floor requires only ‘minor renovation” approval under Section 110 of the Act (below).
110 MINOR RENOVATIONS BY OWNERS
(1) The owner of a lot in a strata scheme 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 corporationgiven by resolution at a general meeting. A special resolution authorising the work is not required.
(2) The approval may be subject to reasonable conditions imposed by the owners corporation and cannot be unreasonably withheld by the owners corporation.
(3) “Minor renovations” include but are not limited to work for the purposes of the following:
(a) renovating a kitchen,
(b) changing recessed light fittings,
(c) installing or replacing wood or other hard floors ,
(d) installing or replacing wiring or cabling or power or access points,
(e) work involving reconfiguring walls,
(f) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(4) Before obtaining the approval of the owners corporation, an owner of a lot must give written notice of proposed minor renovations to the owners corporation, including the following:
(a) details of the work, including copies of any plans,
(b) duration and times of the work,
(c) details of the persons carrying out the work, including qualifications to carry out the work,
(d) arrangements to manage any resulting rubbish or debris.
(5) An owner of a lot must ensure that:
(a) any damage caused to any part of the common property by the carrying out of minor renovations by or on behalf of the owner is repaired, and
(b) the minor renovations and any repairs are carried out in a competent and proper manner.
(6) The by-laws of a strata scheme may provide for the following:
(a) additional work that is to be a minor renovation for the purposes of this section,
(b) permitting the owners corporation to delegate its functions under this section to the strata committee.
(7) This section does not apply to the following work:
(a) work that consists of cosmetic work for the purposes of section 109,
(b) work involving structural changes,
(c) work that changes the external appearance of a lot, including the installation of an external access ramp,
(d) work involving waterproofing,
(e) work for which consent or another approval is required under any other Act,
(f) work that is authorised by a by-law made under this Part or a common property rights by-law,
(g) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
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.