Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In larger schemes there is a lot a paperwork and checking to check who can vote.
Aaaaah, there you go. JimmyT gets it wrong again. I was just going by the rules in my apartment block which is, of course, perfect.
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.
Nope. It has to be on the official form which must be submitted to the secretary 24 hours before the meeting.
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.
anything … that is not in keeping with the appearance of the Building
And there’s your leverage for defending your case, if it comes to it. Who’s to say it’s not exactly what people would expect to see in a modern apartment block.
But I would put money on them just letting it slide because it’s not worth the hassle.
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.
Our strata manager has submitted a new strata management contract using the SCA form Version 2024. Clause 6.2 states the agent’s maximum liability shall not exceed any cap set by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation and applicable to the agent.
I contacted SCA about this and this was their reply.
This agreement was updated as of February 2025 as part of SCA’s ongoing efforts to align with government reform, the Unfair Contract Terms Act, drive best practice and support continued reform across the strata industry.
Schedule 12 of the Property and Stock Agents Regulation 2022 noted terms specific to an agency agreement for management of strata or community title land that are to be excluded.
2A Terms excluded from agency agreement
(1) The agency agreement must not include a term or terms to the effect of the following—
(a) the owners corporation or association must pay for the agent’s professional indemnity liability, including insurance excess,
(b) the agent’s liability is limited to a specified monetary amount.
2A (2) states that subsection (1)(b) does not apply to an agreement covered by a professional standards scheme that has been approved by the Professional Standards Council, within the meaning of the Professional Standards Act 1994, and that is in force.
SCA (NSW) has a Professional Standards Scheme, therefore any member of SCA are able to have this term as they are undertaking the professional standards and requirements of the scheme instrument. This includes annual reporting of their professional indemnity, significant regular CPD education above the NSW Fair Trading CPD requirements.
For more detailed discussion or clarification, we recommend they contact the SCA (NSW) office directly to ensure they receive the most accurate and appropriate response to their concerns.Clause 6.4 of the new form provides that the agent is discharged from all liability under contract, tort or otherwise at the expiration of 3 years from the date of the act given rise to the liability.
This is what SCA replied:
Clause 6.4 of the new form provides that the agent is discharged from all liability under contract, tort or otherwise at the expiration of 3 years from the date of the act given rise to the liability. It was increased from 2 years to 3 years and included reciprocal rights to both the agent and the owners corporation.
SCA Agency Agreement User Licence – Terms and Conditions
“The Corporate Member may make amendments to the SMAA template by hand alterations or by attaching special conditions to reflect terms agreed with specific clients. However, the Corporate Member does so at its own risk, is responsible for obtaining its own legal advice in relation to the implications of such amendments and releases SCA (NSW) from any liability in relation to such amendments.”In short, get your strata manager to get the latest version of the contract from SCA and bear in mind that you can still make changes that you both agree on.
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 recorded a webinar today with strata lawyer David Bannerman (one of our sponsors) and he said that depending on the wording of the relevant by-law, the Owners Corp might well have trouble convincing a Tribunal member that banning your Vegepod was not “unreasonable” and there for invalid. He, like me, says do nothing and enjoy your herbs and veges.
But for the record, what does the by-law actually say?
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.
Strange that there’s no PM option for you – it appears in the menu in the top left of most posts.
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.
Sounds like BS to me. Are the insurers driving this change?
The question of liability appears to be in keeping with the indemnity offered to SCA now that they have reached the much-vaunted status of a “profession”. Strata managers have been hiding behind the (correctly categorised) BS that they can’t change the contract because it is SCA copyright for decades. At one point SCA even threatened to sue owners for breach of copyright if they amended their contract in any way.
I had thought the new regime at SCA, following the Netstrata scandal, had stopped using this tactic. Perhaps the news hasn’t filtered through to the front lines.In the meantime, have a word with the Owners Corporation Network (ocn.org.au) about using their off-the-peg strata management contract. If your strata manager refuses to agree, start looking for one who will.
Meanwhile, I will raise this with SCA to see what they say.
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.
one can’t help being nervous that some owner does something illegal, that no-one gets to hear about, until something goes wrong and the BC has to solve a problem.
It might be worth putting together a polite and friendly circular to all owners and tenants telling them what they need to do before they can start “renovating”.
This would include reminding renters that they must get permission from their landlords before any work can be done and that the strata committee will inform the owners that work is being done, to make sure permission has been granted.
There are so many people in strata who think that because they own the flat they can do whatever they want, regardless of the effect on common property, but would be happy to know what the rules are.
And it sounds like you need a new 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.
I’m okay if Jimmy T wants to share my email details with you so we can compare notes.
For specifics, especially naming companies, use the “send message” facility in the menu in the top left of the post window. For general comments on this issue, please post here so we can all benefit from your experience and observations.
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.
Not sure if that’s an “official” Notice to Comply.
It probably wasn’t. A Notice to Comply has to come on a specific form, as issued by Fair Trading, and there has to be a decision at a committee meeting to issue one or it’s not valid (unless it’s issued by the strata manager).
I would let it be known to the committee, probably via a friendly member, that just blindly issuing NTCs to you will have consequences, in that they will ultimately have to go to the Tribunal and prove that your Vegepod is an eyesore – and their success is by no means guaranteed. Quiet diplomacy and ignoring the threats will probably get the job done.
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 mention the pets issue in my intro to the Forum wrap-up because that changed thinking about strata by-laws that had been held sacrosanct for decades. The building concerned had a no-pets by-law which was assiduously enforced by the strata committee until one owner challenged it under section 139 of the Act: “A by-law must not be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.”
Now the ultimate result in this case was that the NSW Court of Appeal ruled that the by-law was invalid as it was harsh and oppressive because it didn’t allow any exceptions under any circumstances.
Some people have interpreted this to mean that all by-laws are invalid, which is obviously not the case. However, it’s worth looking then at this roundup from our sponsors Bannermans lawyers which lists other by-laws that have been declared invalid for similar reasons, including bans on smoking and demands that floors could only be carpeted.
So, getting back to the Vegepod ban, our OP might do well to explain to their committee that if they push this too far, their whole by-law could be challenged and possibly invalidated by the Tribunal because it doesn’t allow for any variations under any circumstances and is therefore harsh and oppressive.
I would imagine any NCAT Member worth their salt would ask the strata scheme’s representatives what their definition of “in keeping with the look of the building” is. And if that’s not clearly defined in the by-laws, then the by-law could be seen to be harsh.
In the meantime, I’d be taking Kaindub’s advice, which is basically to ignore the committee’s demands, wait until they get a Notice to Comply and then ignore that too on the grounds that the by-law quoted in the NTC is invalid. In other words “bring it on”.
Meanwhile, they could write to the committee to have it put on record that they believe the by-law, or at least its enforcement, to be harsh and oppressive and to alert owners to the possibility that their committee is about to spend a lot of money fighting a legal case that is really just a coin-toss and even if they win will be to the detriment of the community.
A sensible committee will then just let it go through to the keeper. But then you will always have the bullies and martinets who can’t compromise, let alone see anyone else’s point of view.
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.
Yup, What Kaindub said. Check the thick black lines on the strata plan as they show the boundaries of common property.
Don’t assume anything as some areas around townhouses can be designated as lot property and some as common property. Check the plan.
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 maximum fine of $2,200 is for a breach of Section 71. The maximum fine for a breach of S166 is $110,000 (500 x $220).
Still a hefty deterrent for small firms or serial miscreants… except the Act says they have to provide three quotes or a written reason why they didn’t do so. How hard would that be?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.
Are you changing common property or just repairing it. Are they referring to the repair as a change. Or have you changed it and discovered the CP was faulty.
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 if your OC is silly enough to get, for mediation, legal advice or send the agent as their rep then that is their choice, not yours.
And make sure that the OC raises a special levy for the costs, but which doesn’t include you. And make sure that they have been warned so that they have to explain to other owners why they and not you are paying needless legal bills.
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.