[Jimmy-T]

KP, what you say about chasing the bad debts is absolutely right but you lost me on your argument that the reason for the special levy is so that the strata manager can earn commissions.

Why would the special levy make any difference?  It sounds like the Owners Corp doesn’t have the funds to meet its statutory obligations to insure the building and that money has to come from somewhere.

However, if some people aren’t paying their levies, then the special levy is only transferring the payment to those who are (and that’s money they won’t get back without a unanimous vote – which clearly ain’t going to happen).

I agree that the correct procedure is to chase the debt and there are plenty of companies that will do that for you without any extra charges being incurred by the Owners Corp.

In the meantime, the OC should be looking at a loan, rather than a special levy, so that the backsliders will eventually have to pay their fair share.

But, all said and done, I think we can leave the kneejerk insurance commission reaction out of this one.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Noise complaints can fall into three areas – strata by-law breaches, local government and State government. The latter two can often involve police who can issue an on-the-spot Noise Abatement Order.

Have a look that this Legal Aid website, and this one from South Perth (even if you don’t live there, your local council may have similar regulations).  

And here is advice offered to party animals in WA on THIS WEBSITE: 

• In Western Australia, it is an offence to create ‘unreasonable noise’, but its definition is left to the police. Factors such as time, location and volume will be critical. If your party is judged to be creating ‘unreasonable noise’, then the police can order a noise abatement direction to stop the noise and heavy fines may be applicable.

  In Western Australia, there are restrictions for the use of musical instruments and sound systems – common devices at parties. The restricted times are:

• Monday to Saturday: 7pm to 7am
• Sunday or Public Holiday: 7pm to 9am
   This does not limit when you can use such devices, but during these times you must ensure that the volume is low enough not to be heard in a habitable room of your neighbours.

Talk to your local police community liaison officer about what you can do … then do it.  Fines of $1000 and confiscation of equipment – both of which can happen when the police tell them to turn the music down and the party people turn it back up – will get their attention.

That is backed up by this factsheet from Environmental Defender’s Office of Western Australia which says:

Where an authorised person or police officer believes that an unreasonable noise is being emitted from any premises he or she can issue a noise abatement direction to the occupier of the premises (and anybody making or contributing to the noise) to stop the noisy activity.

Failure to comply with a noise abatement direction is an offence. Failure to comply with a direction also entitles the authorised person or police officer to seize the equipment that is causing the noise. To assist in the exercise of these powers, authorised persons are entitled to enter any property and demand of any person the name and address of the occupier of the premises.

Another thing worth remebering is the the 7am until 7pm rule doesn’t necessarily allow noise during these periods – residents are still governed by your by-laws on top of state or council rules.

I t sounds like the time for action is long overdue. Pursue the next stage of failure to observe the notice to comply and call the cops.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

There is actually a very simple answer to this.  The building manager can’t order anyone to do anything except stop breaching by-law.  So your friend just has to ask which by-law he’s breaching.  No by-law,  no breach,  no problem. 

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.

[Jimmy-T]

One new building proposal I have heard of has cut the number of car parks and instead allowed for two care share spaces specifically for residents.  That’s your answer.  If you can generate the interest in a car share service just for your residents, I’m sure they will put a car in your building, then you don’t have to worry about allocating use, servicing or insuring the vehicle.

Have a look at the websites for Hertz247,  DriveMyCar and GoGet and perhaps they have the answer you are looking for.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Thanks for that.

By the way, the Minister for Fair Trading (FT) has issued a warning about high speed internet services to strata buildings and you can read it here. 

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.

[Jimmy-T]

@tharra said:
… have been tracking the NBN for MDUs for a while … the NBN will either run FTTP, FTTB or use existing cable infrastructure to connect your residents. When they’re ready to commence rolling out in your area your OC will be contacted. You can register your building with NBN Co & obtain a registration & LOCID if you want to be on the contact list.

NBN, MDUs, FTTP, FTTB, OC, LOCID …

All I can say is … WTF?

Please spell out acronyms and initials the first time you use 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.

[Jimmy-T]

Under section 138 (2) of the Act, if an application is made to the committee to fulfill its duties and it fails to do so within two months (or refuses to do so) any “interested party” can make an application for an order at NCAT requiring them to do so.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

@Blueman said:
I am well aware of the NSW model bylaws. So assuming this case is in NSW, in my opinion based on the information provided by the OP, the schemes EC has acted reasonably in this matter.

 … and assuming these are the model by-laws in place.  Even so, any reasonable person would read the model by-laws to mean that they were allowed to have a pet provided they could get permission.  And the by-law states that permission could not be unreasonably refused.

And the original poster has a well-behaved pet and they look after it properly – they had had no specific complaints about the dog’s behaviour – so there is no reason to refuse it, except for prejudice and dumb ignorance of the way strata schemes and by-laws work.

You are entitled to your opinion, Blueman, but I would hate any reader of these posts to think that the model by-law that essentially allows pets, employed in conjunction with a history of refusal of companion animals, would prevent owners from bringing pets into a strata scheme.  It doesn’t, regardless of what you think.

My advice to Flatchatters is this: If you want to prevent people from ever bringing any pets into your scheme, pass a by-law that says “no pets”.  Don’t depend on a by-law that actually allows pets under certain conditions.  It really is as simple as that and lazy ECs that can’t be bothered to change their by-laws to reflect the wishes of the majority of owners deserve all the trouble they get.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Some owners don’t handle being (collective) employers very well.  They seem to expect that anyone who upsets them for any reason should be sacked on the spot – a situation they would never tolerate in their own workplaces.  The sense of entitlement that often comes with being a strata owner makes you think these people must have been raised in Downton Abbey rather than suburban Australia.

That said, it’s well worth large strata schemes looking at a dispute resolution program where people who have a complaint, legitimate or otherwise, against a neighbour or worker can have there say, be listened to and clear the air.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

@Blueman said:
Who’s to say that in this case the refusal was unreasonable? Just because the application was rejected, does not make it unreasonable. The OP states the block had been pet free from some time.

If the existing owners wanted to allow pets they could introduce a bylaw for that purpose, it seems they haven’t. Seems by refusing applications the majority of existing owners don’t want pets.

If the existing owners wanted to allow pets and were unhappy with the decisions of the existing EC, they could change the EC at the appropriate meeting, but they haven’t done that either.

JT, our bylaws do attempt to address this issue, but they make no mention of horses, cattle, pigs, goats, fish, snakes, lizards, spiders, cockroaches or a whole heap of other animals, etc.

You are missing the point.  The model by-law says pets can’t be allowed without the permission of the EC. Which effectively means pets CAN be allowed WITH the permission of the EC.

It then says that permission can’t unreasonably be refused.

So what is unreasonable? Saying “we have never allowed pets” is not a reason … it’s a statement of previous decisions.  A reasonable purchaser might reasonably assume that their pets would be allowed if there was no reason – eg, they didn’t cause a nuisance or were too big or dangerous or smelly or whatever – to refuse.

Your sarcasm is misplaced. Try applying reason to your arguments and you may see where they are flawed. And ask yourself why you have a by-law that addresses pets when you seem to think you don’t need one.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

@Blueman said:
Well, why have these sort of model by-laws in the first place? What was discussed when the scheme was first set-up? If the government meant for it to be a free-for-all on the matter, then there would be no need for the model by-law to exist.

There is no free-for-all.  It sounds in this case like there is a model by-law in place that says you can only have a pet if you have permission but that permission can’t unreasonably be refused.

Strata owners have the opportunity to adopt  a different by-law by a simple majority vote at their first AGM or by a special resolution at any general meeting.

The problem in this case is that the EC has kept a by-law that allows pets conditionally but have pursued a policy of no pets under any circumstances. That is unreasonable if only because new purchasers are being misled into thinking there was a chance they might be allowed to have pets.

All it would require would be a change of personnel on an EC and you could find the same building allowing pets without conditions.

Among proposed changes that died with the postponement of the strata law reforms were one that changed the model by-law to saying pets were allowed unless there were reasonable objections and another that demanded owners review their by-laws every few years.

But, honestly, any executive committee that bumbles along, bending its by-laws out of shape because “we’ve always done it this way”, can expect to get slapped in the face with the wet fish of reality sooner or later. 

Read your by-laws.  If they don’t clearly state what the majority of owners in your building want, change them.  It’s as simple as that.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

This is a classic case of an EC that’s too lazy to check their own by-laws and make sure they reflect what their community wants.

The default model by-law says, as has been discussed, that you can’t have a pet without permission and permission can’t be unreasonably refused.

As we have pointed out many times in Flat Chat, saying that you have never allowed pets is not “reasonable” grounds for refusal becasue the by-law still allows pets, albeit under certain conditions.

In this instance, I suspect Claire has a pretty strong case to take to Fair Trading and NCAT (especially since the EC has refused to mediate).  But this is an object lesson for Owners Corps that really don’t want pets in their buildings.  Your by-laws have to reflect that and if you don’t have the support to change the by-law, then maybe the EC is out of step with its 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.

[Jimmy-T]

@mini said:
I suppose if the OC gives or sells the owner a key/remote/swipe it becomes the owner’s?  Isn’t that also common law?

I have left this in because it is the kind of BS argument that eventually got mini banned from the Forum.  Strata law is complex and far-reaching … introducing spurious arguments about common law is simply complicating already confusing issues.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

I would have thought your manager/chair may have fallen foul of section 122 of the Act where says they must not make use of their position to gai a personal advantage, directly or indirectly. Wouldn’t participation in a vote on whether or not to continue their contract contravene that rule?

This is what the Act says:

122. Duties of manager
(1) A manager—
(a) must act honestly and in good faith in the performance of the manager’s functions; and
(b) must exercise due care and diligence in the performance of the manager’s functions; and 
(c) must not make improper use of the manager’s position to gain, directly or  indirectly, an advantage personally or for any other person. 

Also, following up on Whale’s suggestion, Section 165 of the Act, which outlines the rulings that VCAT can make, includes the Tribunal’s power to revoke both the appointment of a chair and the appointment of a manager.

So I would be asking your chair to step out of the vote on whether or not her contract should be terminated and if she refuses to do so, and then uses her vote to consolidate her position, look at taking it straight to VCAT to have her removed from both roles.

In fact, just explaining to her that you have examined that option may persuade her to pull her head in.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

@kiwipaul said:
Their is no casting vote each vote carries the same entitlement in committee. If a committee decision is 3 votes all the motion is lost and it doesn’t matter how the Chair voted.

As Whale has pointed out below, this is not the case in Victoria where the Chair DOES have a casting vote.

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.

[Author]

Replies