Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@friendlyhost said:
Interfering with any other unit’s right to quiet enjoyment is the law I can see being broken. Body Corporates cannot create by-laws interfering with this right, as Jimmy suggests. Yes you can create the by-law, but it is only a bluff and not legal. Jimmy is bluffing you now, plus wasting your time.And exactly how am I “bluffing”? Surely the right to peaceful enjoyment of your lot is totally different to your imagined right to let your unit to whomever you choose for however long you want. If your unit block is zoned residential only and you are making money from short-term lets then you are breaking the law. That’s not a bluff – it’ a fact … just ask the guy who’s been threatened with a $1.1 million fine in Leichhardt
Only Councils can stop short term letting if they have a clause in their LEP that overrides the State Planning Act that allows it. Body Corporates do not have this power or right so why is this suggested over and over again over the years I have read this forum.
Where in the “State Planning Act” does it say you are allowed to have short-term lets? Send me the reference and I will print it right here. In any case, ouncil planners, as VCAT has just confirmed, are the correct body to set residential or commercial zoning – not owners corporations, not you and certainly not me.
Owners Corporation can create by-laws to limit the use of their apartments to residential lets only, provided their building is zoned residential under the DA. This allows owners corps to take direct action rather than waiting for council to do something. Owners corps can’t create by-laws that supersede superior laws. But that would not be the case here. They are implementing the law – not circumventing it.
However, Owners Corps can’t create by-laws to prevent short term lets if their strata scheme is not zoned residential only. I don’t think I have ever said anything contrary to that.
This is Jimmy’s personal bugbear and is not giving all the correct information for a fair 2 sided debate and the tone of the language is a bit extreme. Everything short term letters are “guilty” of, so are permanent letters and owners.
I think it’s a bit extreme to say ordinary residents are guilty of the same things as short-term strata parasites. And yes, I do use strong langauge to get my message across, just so the people who are turning residential blocks into hotels understand that they are breaking the law, they are taking advantage of their neighbours and they are selfish and greedy.
Nearly all my guests are retired grandparents visiting family close by. My neighbour told me that he thought the apartment was vacant permanently as he hears nothing (meanwhile he is blowing cigarette smoke into my window, also perfectly legal).
That’s very nice for you – but it doesn’t change the fact that other people have horrendous experiences with holiday lets and party flats.
The permanent tenants in the building have parties, start Harleys at 6am, leave rubbish everywhere that I clean up, because it is embarrassing for overseas visitors to see. My guests, mostly hail from England, bring plenty of money to spend in the local area. They make friends with my friendly neighbouring apartment.
Again, your experience is far from universal. There are other avenues that can be explored to deal with the problems you mention – of course it helps if you aren’t breaking the law yourself.
Backpackers cannot afford to rent holiday apartments. The rental code states we can only rent to 2people per bedroom at one time, unlike permanent renters and owners that can do what they want.
The “rental code” is a voluntary and optional “code of conduct” that has no legal standing. It mentions strata only once in its 25 pages but on two occasions says that tenants must abide by by-laws. So, if those by-laws says “no short term lets” … I guess that where it becomes less binding.
In any case, the changes to strata laws will allow all owners corps to place limits on the number of residents in all units.
If a short term tenant is noisy (never happened to me in 15 years!), it is the same remedy as a long term tenant, but at least you don’t have to put up with it forever. It has nothing to do with the owner but is a police matter. Call the police and stop whinging to the wrong people.
It depends on the time of day whether the police will attend or just tell you it’s a strata matter. But, hey, if you’ve never had a complaint then no one ever has, right? Is that what you are saying? The Watergate in Melbourne and the Bridgeport and World Tower in Sydney are just figments of my imagination?
So I have broken no laws and have looked after the building when 10 of the 12 owners are interstate investors who refuse to spend a cent on maintenance. Yet somebody like Jimmy campaigns for years to take away my livelihood.
If you have broken no laws then no-one can take away your livelihood. I am “campaigning” against the people who flout by-laws and planning laws with impunity. If you are doing nothing wrong then I have no issue with you.
As for investors not paying for upkeep, Owners Corporations have a legally binding duty to maintain and repair common property. If your strata committee won’t agree to pay for it, apply for the statutory appointment of a strata manager … oh, wait a minute, they would shut down your illegal short-term lets. Can’t have that.
I make about 15% extra from holiday rental, which allows me to stay home and look after my disabled child. I have not affected anybody in anyway ever, except to make them happy. Yet given the chance, Jimmy would try and take this off me because he believes we all need to be punished whether we are annoying or not. He wants to take away the opportunity that allows beautiful loving families to visit their loved ones, in my case it is usually for the birth of a baby. They cannot afford to travel to Australia and pay 3 or 4 weeks in a hotel room. Also there are not many hotels nearby anyway.
So apply to the council for rezoning. Or buy a boarding house. If there is that much demand, you would make a mint. Ah, but then if you were “street legal” you wouldn’t be able to make use of your common property facilities for free. It’s a puzzle, all right.
Yes I agree that there are some problems in some areas like everything in this world. If you get a bad plumbing job do you run down every plumber in Australia. Do not go after good people because of a few bad eggs or one bad personal experience. Look at issues as a one off or isolated case and solve that issue. Fix the real problem. Then get over it.
Your exemplary behaviour and your special problems are not an excuse for other people breaking the law and flouting planning regulations. I am glad that your visitors are all sweetness and light. Bully for you! But I suspect it would be a different story if someone else was letting their flats to party people who were keeping you and your kid awake all night.
It’s a simple fact of strata living that everything is acceptable until someone complains. You can probably fly under the radar happily for years. But please don’t use your special circumstances as a stick with which to beat people who are trying to fix a serious problem elsewhere.
One other thing. If you are going to accuse me of deliberately misleading my readers, try to get your facts straight first or you will just end up looking foolish.
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.
Below is what the Act says (note section b). Generally, it is accepted that if something is not forbidden, then it is allowed. If the owners don’t want the strata managers to make a loan arrangement, they should pass a motion forbidding them from doing so. Remember, unless they are there by statutory appointment, the strata manager answers to the owners, not the other way round.
24 Who can exercise functions relating to the finances and accounts of the owners corporation?
A person must not exercise any of the functions of an owners corporation or the treasurer of an owners corporation relating to the receipt or expenditure of, or the accounting for, money of the owners corporation or the keeping of the books of account of the owners corporation unless the person is:
(a) a member of the owners corporation or of the executive committee and the treasurer of the owners corporation or of the executive committee, or
(b) a strata managing agent who is empowered to exercise that function, or
(c) a person with whom the treasurer of the owners corporation is required by an order of the executive committee to exercise that function jointly, and who is enabling the treasurer to comply with the order, or
(d) a member of CPA Australia, or a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, authorised by the owners corporation to exercise the function, or
(d1) a member of the Institute of Public Accountants authorised by the owners corporation to exercise the function, or
(e) during the initial period only—a person authorised by the original owner to exercise the function.
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 doesn’t matter who installed the floor, the damage was caused by the failure of the Owners Corp to hire a competent builder and it is up to the owners corp to compensate you. They could then pursue the builder through the thbuilder’s insurance but that is their problem, not yours.
Also, it’s worth making the point that this ‘unapproved” floor is also their responsibility because they or their predecessors did nothing about the floor when it was going in under the previous owner who installed 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.
You could always “alter the aesthetics” of the car door handles. Or just print that column out and stick it on their windshields
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.
Hi Tracey
This comes under privacy laws, such as they are. What it boils down to is that anybody can take pictures of anything, anywhere, provided they are on public property and not used for nefarious purposes … and even then …
Even if you are outside someone’s property and take a picture of the inside, provided they aren’t nude or involved in sexual activity, you can get away with it.
However, if you are on their property, you need their permission or it is a trespass.
In short, the agent needs your permission and you could make that subject to removing personal items and a written undertaking that they will not be used in any other medium or for any other purpose.
You could withhold that permission but then you have to ask yourself if that would put renewing your tenancy at risk in the future.
The excellent and normally comprehensive Tenants Union website is silent on this. maybe you should drop them a line.
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.
Your Owners Corp is exempt from needing the Approval of a General meeting if the legaladvice is less than $1000 per unit or $12,500, whichever is less.
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 an all-encompassing Section 138 by which you can ask an adjudicator to make a ruling on what the EC or Owners Corp should do.
If you go to mediation, then adjudication, the people who are pushing for this will have to show their evidence if they want a ruling in their favour.
By the way, their argument that you have to prove them wrong is nonsense. All you have to do is tell them that any decision they make that is not covered by the Strata Act will be a) challenged at NCAT and b) a ruling will also be sought to adjust levies so that they alone pay all costs.
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 problems with leaving it to individual owners to deal with noise issues – or any other problem, for that matter – is that it very quickly becomes very personal. Also, arguments about noise carry a lot less weight if the owners corp or executive committee are not supporting the complainers.
That said there is a growing and disturbing trend of “I’m Alright Jack” attitudes in ECs – the opposite of EC members using their privileged positions to pursue legal action – where the EC members say they aren’t suffering therefore it can’t be too bad a problem. There’s also a trend of penny-pinching to keep the levies down (now there’s a false God that gets way too much worship).
I took this very issue to a senior member of Fair Trading and this was his response:
The by-laws are binding on all owners/occupiers and it is the responsibility of the owners corp to oversee and enforce via Notice to Comply/Penalties or mediation/NCAT
So they are an EC and/or general meeting issue. The EC may decide that certain behaviour does not constitute a breach, but they can’t say they are not responsible for administering by-laws.
I’d suggest an owner write to sec requesting a motion be put to EC meeting (or general meeting) to pursue a by-law breach (including notice to comply/penalty and mediation/NCAT – this is to give them full authority to pursue whatever action may be required if the person in breach does not respond).
Alternatively, an owner affected by the breach, or any other owner or tenant really, can apply for mediation themselves against the person in breach – to mediate, then seek orders if necessary.
So you see, the individual approach is there as a fall-back if the EC route isn’t available (for instance, if the miscreant is running the EC). But the every man and woman for themselves attitude just doesn’t fly.
One more thing, I think it would be very helpful if every Owners Corp had a set of protocols, backed by a by-law, that spelled out what the steps would be in the event of a noise or any other complaint. As part of that, you may well decide that a complaint that hasn’t been made by more than one resident and hasn’t been witnessed by another resident would be taken as a personal dispute between two residents.
In this case, where you have two owners both making the same complaint, I would be telling the EC they aren’t going to save money by doing nothing. They can either do something about it or face the hassle and expense of defending a Section 138 adjudication (compelling an Owners Corp to fulfill its obligations) and then have to do it anyway. Double the hassle and double the cost.
By the way, as I have said on this forum before, anyone who is on an EC with the intention of blocking efforts to help members of the community, just to save money, should be tarred and feathered (or at least Facebooked)!
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.
In NSW the compliance certificate is awarded (or not) after an inspection by a council officer. Any repairs or adjustments have to be inspected and approved.
There is a chronic shortage of qualified inspectors which is why the deadline for compliance has been shifted for the second time to April next year, meaning it will be coming in two years after it was supposed to.
The “duty of care”, or responsibility, as we used to call it, lies solely with the Owners Corporation of which all owners are a part, whether they want to be or not. So it’s not them – it’s US.
If your pool fencing hasn’t been fixed and inspected by this time next year, no one will be able to buy, sell or let a unit in your building. So ask your EC what they are doing about it now.
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 key to this question is whether or not the current balcony balustrades are safe (and I don’t mean compliant with current standards – that’s a whole other issue). If they are still OK but unsightly, then this is an improvement. If they are unsafe, then this is an owners corp responsibility. Having said that, let’s not forget who the Owners Corp are – you guys! This is not a freebie.
However, what really baffles me about this is the potential for scattered appearance with some balconies filled in and some others not. It’s like the building will be pixillated. And who will have responsibility for the maintenance and repairs of these enclosed balconies?
I think your Owners Corp should step away from this half-baked plan and let those who want to enclose or upgrade their balconies do so at their own expense and with by-laws to ensure they will have responsibility for their ongoing maintenance.
But I wonder if perhaps someone on your EC is pushing this plan because they will get what they want out of 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.
The problem is that if you can’t prove who is doing these things, then you can’t expect the EC to act on allegations and accusations.
But Excathedra is right. Closed sircuit TV cameras or even webcams are incredibly cheap to install and even if they don’t gather evidence, they act as a deterrent.
A by-law allowing the EC to monitor common property areas for security purposes would give them all the authority required.
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.