Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
As far as i know there is no legal definition of ‘visitor’ but this is something you can attend to in your own by-laws by, for instance saying that visitors during the day have a maximum of, say, three hours and overnight they have to arrive after 6pm and leave by 7.30 am. Or whatever. It’s entirely up to you and your neighbours to set the parameters to suit the way your building runs.
Having said that, anyone parking permanently in visitor parking is not a visitor. However, it’s the resident you have to go after since you have no sanctions over non-residents.
Start a discussion now about drawing up a by-law for your next general meeting – if nothing else, it will be interesting to discover what your neighbours think a visitor is.
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.
@justsaying said:
Would someone answer my question about the painting of the external foyers, please.Every question like this has three parts.
1. Did anyone do anything wrong?
2. How wrong was it?
3. What can be done about it (and what do you want done about it)?
To answer No.1, did the EC have a subsequent meeting after the original meeting to discuss the painting of the additional areas? If not, the painting is unauthorised and whoever ordered it could be personally liable. If they did have a meeting, properly agendad and minuted, then you’re probably out of luck becasue they will argue that they had authority to paint foyers and then had the opportunity to do more presumably at a better price.
The answer to 2 would only matter if the cost of the painting was excessive and someone who authorised it was in some way connected with the painters. the colour issue is highly subjective and probably won’t fly at an adjudiaction.
Finally, what can be done about it? I f there is corruption, a failure to tell owners this was happening, no meeting or gross incompetence, you could maybe run a case at NCAT the the individual who ordered the painting be ordered to pay fro the re-painting of the foyers to their original colour or, at least, pay for the paint that nobody likes.
Your chances of success – I’d say minimal … unless you can prove this was one or two people acting without authority and with an ulterior motive.
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.
Only the strata manager or EC can issue a Notice To Comply. You, however, can first apply for (mandatory) mediation at Fair Trading then if that doesn’t work, apply to NCAT (formerly the CTTT) for orders forcing the other owner not to park on Common Property.
This is not a road your neighbour would want to go down since falure to abide by NCAT orders carries 10 times the financial penalty of failure to abide by Notices To Comply.
Click HERE to find the process explained in detail, with links to the forms you will need to proceed with your action
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.
Depending on the number of units that have already upgraded, I was going to suggest another tack.
First you pass a by-law making internal electrics (the wiring only servicing each individual unit) the lot owners’ responsibility. You explain that you are doing this so that some owners don’t have to pay twice for electricity upgrades.
And you stress that, for fire safety reasons, there can be no opt-out from the upgrade but owners can take advantage of a much cheaper rate from having all the rewiring done at the same time. Lot owners have a responsibility to maintain their lots so this is something that can be enforced at a later date (and at greater expense to the recalcitrant owners) if need be.
If everyone is in agreement, it should go ahead quite smoothly. And owners can use Strata Community Australia’s “Who’s responsible for what” document as the template for the by-law as it also covers electrical work.
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.
When you consider that it’s only in the forthcoming changes to strata law that developers will be required to provide all documentation to the owners corp, you can see the potential for paperwork to go missing.
I was peripherally involved in a legal dispute once where the developer refused to let the owners see the plans because they were ‘copyright’ (the owners needed to see them so they could pursue a defects claim).
So don’t be surprised that the plans for your building aren’t immediately available but it may take some detective work on your part. Just trust that someone, somewhere has a copy – your problem is who?
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.
@kiwipaul said:
According to the OP in post 4I’ve already emailed the property manager for a copy of the by-laws. I just checked the contract of sale for the title search certificate. It states in Schedule 2: “Attention is directed to the residential schemes model by-laws contained in the Strata Schemes Management Regulation applicable. At the date of registration of the scheme – keeping of animals – option B has been adopted.” –So the model bylaws for when the strata was registered do apply.Yes. You are right and I was wrong. have had my head in Victoria’s strata laws where the Model Rules are the default when there are no other rules in play. My bad. Apologies.
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.
@kiwipaul said:
Here is a copy of the default strata bylaw for strata. Depending on when your strata was registered it could vary slightly.It doesn’t matter when the by-laws were registered – it’s what bylaws were registered and they may have said nothing about parking on common property. Unlike other states NSW by-laws do not default to the “model” by-laws if notne exists that cover that issue. Demonaz needs to check the by-laws of his lot and proceed from there.
Ask him to issue a NTC immediately (has to be approved by committee) and write to the resident (copy yourself) informing him that he is in breach of bylaws and giving him a time limit to comply.
Strata Managers often have delegated authoity to issue Notices to comply – if so, EC approval is not required. The Notice To Comply does not have a ‘grace’ period; it says you must stop breaching the by-law “now and in the future”.
You’ll find the official Notice To Comply form HERE. NB: Funnily enough, the form uses parking on common property as an example of a typical by-law breach.
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 my original reply here I said there was no time limit on EC decisions. As you will see from SMO’s reply (item 9) I was wrong. Having said that, I have never heard of an EC being ‘timed out’ on a decision (but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened). In the interests of getting the facts right, I have amended this post. Thanks, SMO.
ECs that meet infrequently can agree on a course of action on a simple question by a quick ring around or email, if need be, and then formalise their decision at at their next meeting. This is simple stuff and owners should not be held up by the EC’s timetable.
If there is no change to common property and no serious impact on the amenity of other owners, I would be very tempted to write to the EC telling them that they have had enough time to consider this and you are planning to proceed.
[NB: According to section 128, you can seek orders at a tribunal for failure to perform their function withion two months. See Item 9]
They are free to take you to NCAT if they so desire, should they be unhappy with you proceeding without their permission.
If you wanted to get all ‘bush lawyer’ about it, you could point out that section 43 (3) of the Act says: “A by-law has no force or effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with this or any other Act or law.” You could argue that in their failure to apply the by-law by not considering your request, they have rendered the by-law invalid.
But, to be honest, all over Sydney people are doing a lot worse than installing new kitchens and getting away with it. I can’t advise you what to do but if this was my building I would give them seven days to respond then just go ahead.
How do they know whether or not you have drilled, screwed or hammered nails into anything? Just make sure your tradies don’t hit any vital pipes or electrical conduits and no one need be any the wiser.
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.
@demonaz said:
As you said earlier, it could be too late for inclusion on the AGM agenda. If so, I’m assuming I can pursue the Fair Trading mediation option?
I would be scouring the agenda for anything that even obliquely mentioned parking or common property and use that as a platform. You might even be able to propose an amendment (if it doesn’t stray too far from the original motion). For instance, if there was a kotionn that people shouldn’t leave stuff on common proeprty, then I would be all over that (a very long shot, I admit).
Or, at the risk of being cute, there is a standard motion that has to be considered at every AGM and that is, is there anything that the owners don’t want the EC to consider in the next year.
This is an obligatory motion intended to prevent the EC from pursuing hobby horses that have been rejected before or from pushing ideas that nobody wants.
However … what if you said you don’t want the EC to consider allowing people to park on common property. I may be way out on a limb here but if all you want is to get the problem aired in public, that could be a way of doing it.
Anyone have any thoughts on 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.
A couple of technical points first. There is no statutory definition of a visitor but there is an official warning letter, which is a Notice To Comply.
Foe the Owners Corp to take action, they have to issue a Notice To Comply on a specific form and it has to include details of the by-law that has allegedly been breached. By the way, the owners corp can only take action against the resident of the building, not visitors.
And that brings us back to the definition of “visitor”.
If we start from the assumption that every building has its own by-laws, that that has to be you or you partner’s first port of call. For instance, the by-laws might define a vistor as someone who is allowed to park in the parking space for no more than two hours during the day and, if staying overnight, be required to arrive after a certain time leave by a certain time. Or not.
The answer is in the by-laws and if there is nothing there that defines visitor, then you have a lot of wriggle room.
Having said that, abuse of visitor parking is a big issue in strata and it’s a battle where you don’t want to place your friend in the firing line if you can avoid it.
Get a hold of the by-laws and the make that call. They may be just trying to find out who you are and whether or not your are a permanent resident stealing a visitor spot.
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.
@scotlandx said:
In circumstances like this, if someone tells you to mind your *** business, you are justified in erring on the side of caution.
Caution being …? Checking the bona fides of the candidate? Yeah, I thought so. Because basically, that IS very much your **** business
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.
Strata Law in South Australia was updated last year and it’s probably fair to say that how it all plays out is yet to be seen.
THIS FACTSHEET from the SA government law handbook explains the dispute process which is quite simple – you can sort it out in the strata scheme, you can go to mediation (to get a non-legally binding agreement) or you can take it to a Magistrate’s Court.
Interestingly, among the things the court can do is “deal with disputes where an occupier of a unit claims to have been prejudiced by the wrongful act or default of the strata corporation” and where “a member of a strata corporation [an owner] claims that a decision of the strata corporation … is unreasonable, oppressive or unjust.”
Among its many options, the court has the power to
- order a party do something;
- order that a party refrain from any action, or stop doing something;
- decide on the validity of an article [by-law];
- decide on the validity of a decision of the corporation;
- order that the articles of association [by-laws] be altered;
- reverse or vary any decision of the corporation or management committee;
- award money as damages or compensation;
So, as DaveB suggests, you could do nothing and let them make the next move. My recommendation would be to go to mediation where you would offer not to replace one of your dogs when it expires (as doggies do) but continue to keep it under what has become accepted practice in your scheme.
If they insiost on pursuing it, I think you have a reasonab;e chance that a magistrate would see this for what it is and your owners corp would have to be mindful of the consequences of being over-ruled in this way.
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.
@muz28 said:
Is there a requirement that the provide original or certified documentation?OK, the regulations simply state this: “Nominations must comply with section 18 and must be given to the secretary by the end of the body corporate’s financial year.” Section 18 is quoted in my previous post about eligibility.
My interpretation would be that you (or your returning officer) have to be satisfied that the candidate is eligible. If questions have been raised, all you require is proof of their eligibility which would be either by sighting original or properly authenticated (notarised) copies of birth certificates or statutory declarations of the relationship. Stat Decs are legal documents that, if they are used to deliberately misrepresent the facts, can lead to criminal charges and even jail for perjury.
If the proposer of the nomination can’t produce or refuses to produce these documents then you are entitled to refuse the nomination (in my book). I would, however, caution that you should make is as easy as humanly possible for them to provide the documents so that you can’t be accused of deliberate obstruction.
If no proper documentation can be supplied am I legally able to put aside the nomination and know it can’t be challenged at a later date?
You can’t know whether or not someone is going to challenge you in the future. But that could just as easily apply to decisions made by the EC when it turns out one of its members should never have been nominated.
Talk to a lawyer, if you are truly concerned. Or, if you are having a secret ballot, get the Returning Officer to decide. But I think it is reasonable to ask for proof when the “evidence” you have been given is far from compelling.
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.
@tharra said:
It’s my understanding that you need to be debt free to be able to vote at meetings.
That’s right – and the strata manager shouldn’t accept money at the door of the meeting, either. Could be worse … in some other places you have to be debt free to be able to stand for the EC or even vote at EC meetings after you’ve been elected.
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.
Uncle … niece … cousin – doesn’t matter – they are not eligible.
The Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008 rules HERE are quite clear on this.
10 Eligibility to be a voting member
(1) A person is eligible to be a voting member of the committee if the person is an individual nominated for membership of the committee by a member of the body corporate (the nominating entity) and is also—
(a) a member of the body corporate; or
(b) a person of a following category—
(i) if the nominating entity is an individual—
(A) a member of the individual’s family; or
(B) a person acting under the authority of a power of attorney given by the individual;
OK, so what is a family member?
(3) In this section, family, of a nominating entity who is an individual, means the following persons—
(a) the individual’s spouse;
(b) each of the children of the individual or the individual’s spouse who is 18 years or more, including a step child or an adopted child;
(c) each of the individual’s parents, including a step parent;
(d) a brother or sister of the individual.
You also need to look at sections 16 and 18 of the above regulation. They require the candidate and proposer to sign a document stating their eligibility. I would include in the notice sent out to owners before the AGM that proof of family relationships (i.e. birth or marriage certificates or adoption papers) will be required for anyone proposing candidates who are family members. Failure to provide adequate proof will lead to the candidacy not being permitted.
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.