Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Again, I refer to my column from a couple of weeks ago that explains the principle of the bike audit.
Find out who owns which bike by telling all residents that if bikes aren’t tagged with the name and flat number of their owners, within say two weeks, they will be considered abandoned and given to charity.
As there are no provisions for the disposal of abandoned goods under strata law, this is totally illegal but absolutely sensible.
Better that than angry cyclists calling the cops because they thought they could leave their bikes anywhere but it turned out they couldn’t.
I also refer to Peter C’s post (No. 3) about creating a bike store somewhere.
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.
@excathedra said:
I agree arbitrary confiscation, especially if the owners are known, is not acceptable, but there do appear to be means for removal of abandoned goods after a suitable interval.Does anybody actually read my column? I guess not – so here’s another link to it. It covers the confiscation and distribution of bikes to charities.
But for those of you who don’t need to know all that, unlike the Residential Tenancies Act, the current strata laws don’t have a provision for abandoned goods but the new laws will – or at least there will be provisions for regulations covering this (see below).
It’s hard to see that they will stray far from the tenancies regulations which allow landlords to give fair warning that they are going to dispose of abandoned goods, sell the goods once the deadline is up and then give the tenant the proceeds, minus the cost of the sales, if they turn up later. For that reason, many landlords and owners corps give the bikes to charity because it is less complicated and …. well … it’s just a good thing to do.
But first you need to have a bike audit and to do that … Look, just read the column. You know you want to.
125 Disposal of abandoned goods on common property
The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the following matters: (a) conferring power on an owners corporation to store or dispose of, or authorise the disposal of, goods left on common property, (b) notices to owners and other persons as to disposal or proposed disposal of goods by an owners corporation, (c) the passing of title to any goods on disposal by an owners corporation, (d) the payment of the proceeds of disposal of goods by an owners corporation, (e) conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to make directions and orders relating to the disposal of goods, including orders for the payment of compensation and as to the payment of the costs of disposing of goods.
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.
Another way is to propose a motion for the next EC meeting the briefly details your dissent. something like:
YThe EC acknowledges and records the fact that there were several objetions to the motion which were …
Even if they don’t agree, the dissenting point of view will (or should) be on the record as part of the agenda.
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.
Funny how demanding “both sides of the story” often actually means “don’t argue”.
Happily for Isydowner there’s another strata forum which is very popular with people who have fallen foul of the high standards we impose here and where you can have a good old collective whinge. Enjoy.
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 a big difference between a committee that ignores legitimate correspondence and those that have to deal with floods of often irrational and abusive emails and letters, often from the one person.
How do you tell which is which? Often it’s the sender who establishes the context and criteria, like the one who sends subsequent abusive and overlong emails before the committee has a chance to address the original message, then complains that the matters are not being addressed.
This is a form of bullying and, frankly, the tactic of sending a brief, stock acknowledgement is probably the best way to deal with it.
The committee might also establish a set of protocols that they can send out to people, stating how and when correspondence is dealt with and the restrictions on the committee’s ability to deal with matters without holding a meeting.
The protocols might also state that if owners want their concern to be addressed in a timely manner, communications in the first instance should be no longer than, say, 100 words, they should not be abusive, accusatory or threatening.
Communications that contain accusations of wrongdoing and threats of legal action will, necessarily, take longer to process as legal issues have been raised and greater care is required. Also, subsequent communications will not be considered until the first communication has been dealt with.
If a serial email writer becomes a pest – and we all know these people exist in strata – they can be a terrible drain on committee members’ time and energy. There are legal avenues that can be pursued to deal with ECs that are to lazy to address serious issues. Multiple verbal attacks are not productive for either party
Sending torrents of long-winded complaints wastes everyone’ time. Keep your questions and letters of complaint short and to the point, then no one has any reason for ignoring them. If they are ignored, consider taking a Section 138 action against the EC at NCAT to force their hand.
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 simple answer might be to paint over the disabled parking markings and let those no longer able to park pursue the EC.
However, I think you should take this as an opportunity to work out what the community wants and needs, plus your legal obligations.
Propose in a motion to the to the EC that it agrees to “consolidate” common property, as per the original strata plan, plus any subsequent adjustments that have been registered as by-laws.
Then propose another motion to identify some “loading zones” and establish the length of time they may be used (you may need a by-law for this).
Also, find a space for disabled visitor parking. Define the length of time visitors are allowed to park (again, a by-law may be required).
Meanwhile, find out form councilwhat your legal oblif=gatiosn are when it comes to disabled parking.
Then, further down the track, issue Notices to Comply to anyone who parks in the loading zone and/or the disabled visitor parking without a permit and/or for too long.
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.
Well, what Whale says makes a lot of sense too. I have asked the powers that be to interpret for us. Watch this space …
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 are absolutely right. The key phrase (which my weary eyes skimmed over) is that they are not eligible to “act as members of a strata committee”.
Well, that settles that. Common sense says that they should resign and the law says that they should be replaced by someone appointed to the EC by its remaining members.
With that in mind, it should be pointed out at the AGM prior to the law coming in that there is no point in electing these people as they will be required to vacate as as soon as the law comes in.
Apologies for the oversight.
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 executive committee probably isn’t breaching strata law or by-laws and in fact what they are doing is bolstering the security of the building by limiting access to common property that allows access to other people’s floors.
A good example of this control over common property is the cupboards that contain electrical and communications equipment. They are common property but there’s no way anyone and everyone should have free access to them.
However, if this sis a concern, propose a motion for your EC’s next meeting that they review access to floors via the stairs in a way that doesn’t compromise security.
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.
My response to anyone in strata threatening to sue for libel when they are caught with their pants down is “bring it on.”
Having been close to a target of a law suit, where a rich owner tried to bully the EC and then sued selective members (in the vain hope that the EC’s insurance wouldn’t kick in) for an alleged libel – and lost more than $250,000 in costs when the action failed – I would just point out to the litigious owners that trying to prove a libel in strata is very hard.
For a start there is qualified privilege – i.e. you can say anything you like as long as it’s done in good faith, is relevant to the management of the building and is not done out of malice. It doesn’t even have to be true as long as you have good reason to believe that it is.
Possible defences include the truth, the fact that is was only circulated within a small group who had a vested interest in the matter (like the owners of the building) and that the owners’ right to know superseded the alleged victims desire to keep matters private.
In fact, you could argue that in not conveying the facts of a situation, the EC or individual members would have been derelict in their duties to the Owners Corp.
I would tell the person issuing the threats that if they do sue for libel, a general meeting will be held to discuss the issue with a view to getting Owners Corp approval to fund legal action (as the law requires), including the pursuit of costs.
People who threaten well-intentioned EC members with bogus legal actions (usually when their shortcomings are exposed) are slime and the lawyers who encourage them are parasites.
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 agree with Whale. The relevant section of the Act (see below) says these people are not eligible to be “appointed or elected”. However, if they become ineligible, they are obliged to tell the Owners Corporation in writing as soon as that occurs. EDITED- See Item 5 Below – JT
When the Act comes into force, strata managers and rental agents who are not owners are required to inform the committee which should then inform the owners.
32 Persons who are not eligible to be appointed or elected to strata committee
(1) The following persons are not eligible for appointment or election to a strata committee or to act as members of a strata committee unless they are also the owners of lots in the strata scheme:
(a) the building manager for the strata scheme,
(b) a person who acts as an agent for the leasing of a lot or lots in the strata scheme to tenants,
(c) a person who is connected with the original owner of the strata scheme or the building manager for the scheme, unless the person discloses that connection at the meeting at which the election is held and before the election is held or before the person is appointed to act as a member,
(d) any other person prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.
(2) An owner of a lot in a strata scheme who was an unfinancial owner at the date notice was given of the meeting at which the election of a strata committee is to be held and who did not pay the amounts owing by the owner before the meeting is not eligible for appointment or election to the strata committee.
(3) A person who becomes ineligible for appointment or election to a strata committee after being appointed or elected to the strata committee must disclose that fact to the secretary or chairperson of the owners corporation as soon as possible after becoming aware of that fact.
(4) A disclosure by a person under this section, other than a disclosure that is made at a meeting of an owners corporation or strata committee, is to be made by written notice given to the secretary or chairperson.
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 119 of the Act (below) requires only that the landlord supply details of the name of the tenant, the commencement date of the lease and the name of an agent, if any.
The only circumstances that I can imagine where a strata manager might be able to demand to see the details of a lease would be in a Fair Trading mediation or an NCAT hearing where there was a reasonable suspicion that the landlord had included something in the lease that constiuted a breach of by-laws.
For instance, and this is not unknown, landlords occasionally include parking as part of their rental agreement but have “allocated” the tenant a visitor parking space. The tenant believes they have rented a parking space and finds themselves in breach of the by-laws as a result.
119 Notice to be given to owners corporation of leases or subleases
(1) If a lot is leased, the lessor must give notice of the lease, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the commencement of the lease.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.(2) If a lot is subleased, the sublessor must give notice of the sublease, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the commencement of the sublease.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(3) If a lease or sublease of a lot is assigned, the assignor must give notice of the assignment, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the execution of the assignment.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(4) The notice must specify:
(a) the name of the lessee, sublessee or assignee, and
(b) the date of commencement or assignment of the lease or sublease, as the case requires, and
(c) the name of any agent acting for the owner in respect of the lease or sublease.
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.
Hard to say.
If I were the strata manager, I would bill you for the damage and let you claim it against your insurance.
But this isn’t really a strata law thing – it’s a dispute between you and the Owners Corp over damage you admit you did. It’s up to them what happens next.
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 the dog have or need permission under your by-laws? If not, that gives you great leverage.
However, and this is a little-known fact, even if the dog has been given permission, it can be removed under the terms of the strata Act (Section 151 – see below) if it is a nuisance. It can also be subject to orders from the council.
But rolling that back a little, it may be time to tell the dog owner that this is her last chance to pull her head in. The dog is barking because it wants into her home – that’s where it does its guarding, not in the yard.
If it needs to be let it out when she’s not there, she should get a neighbour or a dog walker to take it walkies.
If she’s not prpared to listen, tell her you will go to Fair Trading and NCAT with this, if need be, and there’s every chance they will force her to get rid of the dog. If they don’t, your council will.
So it’s up to her, if she doesn’t want to lose the dog, she’s going to have to meet you halfway. If she refuses to listen, then she has to face the consequences.
To be honest, you are being more than fair. Any owner who leaves a collie alone all day shouldn’t be allowed to have a dog in the first place.
151 Order relating to animal kept in accordance with by-laws
(1) An Adjudicator may make one of the following orders if the Adjudicator considers that an animal kept on a lot or the common property in accordance with the by-laws causes a nuisance or hazard to the owner or an occupier of another lot or unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of another lot or of the common property:
(a) an order that the person keeping the animal cause the animal to be removed from the parcel within a specified time, and to be kept away from the parcel,
(b) an order that the person keeping the animal take, within a time specified in the order, such action so specified as, in the opinion of the Adjudicator, will terminate the nuisance, hazard or unreasonable interference.
(2) An application for an order under this section may be made only by an owners corporation, lessor of a leasehold strata scheme, strata managing agent, an owner, any person having an estate or interest in a lot or an occupier of a lot.
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 Owners Corp has an absolute reponsibility to maintain and repair common property. They can’t not repair their property because you are behind with your levies.
However, you shouldn’t repair common property yourself unless it is an emergency. You should, instead, be seeking orders at NCAT under section 140. have a look (below) with secial reference to subsection 6.
In short, levies arrears can lead to interest charges and you can’t vote, propose motions or nominate someone for election to the committtee at meetings. But the law says nothing about your debts releasing the OC from its duty to maintain and repair common property.
140 Order relating to alterations and repairs to common property and other property
(1) An Adjudicator may order an owners corporation to consent to work proposed to be carried out by an owner if the Adjudicator considers that the owners corporation has unreasonably refused its consent and the work relates to any of the following:
(a) alterations to common property directly affecting the owner’s lot,
(b) carrying out repairs to common property or any other property of the owners corporation directly affecting the owner’s lot.
(2) An Adjudicator may make an order approving of alterations or repairs already made by an owner to common property or any other property of an owners corporation directly affecting the owner’s lot if the Adjudicator considers that the owners corporation unreasonably refused its consent to the alteration or repairs.
(3) An order under subsection (2) is taken to be the consent of the owners corporation to the alterations or repairs concerned and may be expressed as having effect from a day specified in the order that occurred before the order was made.
(4) An Adjudicator may specify in an order under this section whether the owners corporation or the owner of the lot concerned has the ongoing responsibility for the repair and maintenance of any additional property arising out of an alteration or repair to common property approved under the order.
(5) If an order makes provision for the owner of a lot to have the ongoing responsibility for the repair and maintenance of any such additional property, the order also has effect in relation to any subsequent owner of the lot.
(6) In deciding whether to grant an order under subsection (2) or to provide for the order to have effect from a day that occurred before the date of the order, an Adjudicator may take into account the conduct of the parties in the proceedings, for example, if an owner did not first seek the consent of the owners corporation before carrying out the alterations or repairs.
(7) An application for an order under this section may be made only by a lessor of a leasehold strata scheme or an owner.
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.