Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The simple answer is, not a lot on your own.
You could talk to other committee members and ask them to put some pressure on this person or you could wait until your next general meeting and propose a motion that this person be removed or not re-elected to the committee.
I’m not sure when the new laws come in, but we will soon be able to remove committee members from the committee by a simple majority at a general meeting.
You could propose than motion and ask it to be added to the agenda of the next AGM or EGM. You will be allowed to attach an explanation of why they should be removed. Stick to the facts – filter out emotions and opinions – and at the very least their behaviour will then be a matter of strata record.
And when they threaten defamation action – as they will – point them in the direction of this news story from a couple of years back.
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.
Here you go – a sub-forum just for Taswegians: Living in Tasmanian strata –
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.
If someone enclosed common property without authority, then now you are aware of that, then they will need to restore it to its original condition.
You are probably right in thinking that this are has, at some point been absorbed into the lot by the neighbouring owner. And you are right in thinking that, in the absence of common property by-laws recognising the transfer, it is still common property.
But the person who now owns the lot probably bought it in good faith, believing that this room belonged to the lot. So before anyone starts calling lawyers, maybe it’s worth asking who needs access to the property and if that is likely to be denied to them when the facts of the matter are spelled out. Simply providing a copy of the key so that the OP can access their water heater if need be would save a lot of unnecessary heartache and expense.
Hower, if the lot owner refuses to recognise that they have been misled, it might be time for the OC to flex its legal muscle.
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 reference to the chair and strata chairperson is just a mistake in the original post. The motion actually says this:
That the Owners Corporation, under Section 46 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015, approves
the payment of honorariums to [Person 1] and [Person 2] totalling $97305 each in recognition
of their invaluable services in initiating and leading the collective sale process on behalf of owners across a three year period since 2022.The two people, names removed, are the chair and secretary. Section 46 of the Act says this:
An owners corporation may pay to a person who is an officer of the owners corporation or another member of the strata committee of the owners corporation an amount determined by the owners corporation at an annual general meeting in recognition of services performed by the person for the owners corporation in the period since the last annual general meeting.
If they have been holding their AGMs every year, then the motion is invalid since it and the accompanying explanatory note refers to three years. The chair and secretary should have known this as at least one of them is a lawyer.
We are told that the building’s sinking fund has $250,000 in it which would otherwise be distributed to all the owners on the dissolution of the strata scheme, so the claims in the explanatory note that the chair and secretary have done the work at no cost to the owners would be obviated by these payments.
And even if the duo have truly “earned” these payments – and apparently this was all news to the scheme’s elected treasurer – trying to push it through in a pre-vote-only AGM, which itself is highly dubious, has a whiff of dodgy dealings about it.
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 also note that the use of the term “strata chairperson” is likely a deceptive way to refer to the “strata manager,” who appears to be attempting to take a portion of the funds.
I’ve seen the agenda and this is clearly not the case. The strata manager belongs to an established strata management firm which is itself a subsidiary of a larger outfit. Their worst “crime” is to facilitate this jiggery-pokery.
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.
Does that really mean that he/she is more disadvantaged than the other owners?
That’s why I suggested they get a ruling from NCAT. We have no idea how much everyone would be disrupted and why he might be no worse off than others. We shouldn’t assume anything – but a mediation or, if need be, a Tribunal ruling would at least hear the arguments
But I think there’s a fundamental principle here – one unlucky owner should not have to bear more than their fair share of costs or disruption because of work that benefits everyone.
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.
Yes, even on private property, including the driveway of a free-standing house. However, the law actually says that you may not “detain” a vehicle once its owner has asked for it to be released. The queue of volunteers prepared to respond to these requests from angry drivers might be quite short. The fairly dubious argument about a wheel clamp potentially damaging a car also applies in a roundabout way to a bollard, if the driver damages the car while trying to manoeuvre out of the space. Have a look at this fact sheet.
The most elegant solution that I have found was the building where committee members would volunteer to park their cars with a wheel clamp attached under a sign near the car park entrance that said “We clamp illegally parked cars.”
Also have a look at sections 650A and 651C of the Local Government Act 1993 No 30 – NSW Legislation.
Getting back to the original question – about residents parking in visitor parking – the strata scheme needs to issue Notices to Comply to rogue parkers and if there’s any issues with the definition of that – I would say a resident is by definition not a visitor – pass a by-law defining what a visitor is for the purposes of their scheme. Once an NTC has been issued, you can apply for fines for any further breaches.
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 don’t really see why it’s up to all your neighbours/co-owners to fund your loss of rent if they are not culpable.
Comparisons with a free-standing house are hardly relevant and it’s a matter of responsibility not culpability. The buildingais a whole is benefitting from the remedial work being done. Why then should one owner bear all the costs of disruption.
The Owner should claim against the OC (as they are the responsible party) and they should claim against the builder, who is the culpable party. If that is too onerous for the OC, then the scheme should stump up and pay for the disruption to the apartment concerned.
Again, this work is on common property therefore it benefits the whole building. Look at it from that perspective then explain why any single owner should bear all the costs of the related disruption. The big question is, how do you calculate the disruption – from when the OP can’t rent it out due to possible disruption or when the work actually starts? If the OC dig their heels in, I’d take it to NCAT, just to get a ruling.
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 don’t see why they can’t be used to trap someone into a visitor space if they’ve over-stayed their welcome.
I think it’s against the law to prevent someone from moving their vehicle – same law that prevents us from wheel clamping.
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 question is, how did this former chunk of common property ever become lot property. If there’s no by-law on file, it’s still common property and you are entitled to access the water heater.
Maybe you could do a deal with the lot owners that if they give you a key, you won’t challenge their right to lock the door.
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 difficult to have a discussion with the OC when the SM has said it is not their problem.
Is it really not their problem? Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Check with CAV.
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.
Ran this past Robert Anderson, President of SCA-NSW who said he would have ruled this motion out of order as it states the payment is for three years when the Act says honorariums must be limited to work done in the previous year only.
I think the sneaky buggers may have shot themselves in the feet.
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.
Going it alone is not going to get you anywhere. Organise through your committee to get an inspection of the whole building, and then get the developer to fix the defects.
The OP is talking about minor or cosmetic defects in his apartment which are only covered by a two -year waranty. The strata committee is not going to take any interest in lot property defect claims – it has nothing to do with them. Likewise, apart from possibly sharing the cost of an inspection visit with another owner, the lot-only defects are between the lot owner and the developer and no one else.
The claims period for major defects is SIX years, not seven, and they should be pursued by the strata committee and the owners corporation, not individual 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.
There is no such thing as a head strata plan. Every strata is its own entity.
Obviously, in this case there is a community strata plan that encompasses the other strata schemes. They are all subject, to some extent, to the by-laws of the community scheme. I think it’s pretty clear what the OP meant by “head” strata 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.
What you will probably need to do is renegotiate the contract with the SM.
Good luck with that! Why would they change anything? If they haven’t been doing what the owners want, send them down the road at the first opportunity. BTW, the owners can rescind full delegation at a general meeting at probably before that if the strata manager agrees (and they will if they want to keep the contract).
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.