Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Simple answer – if you don’t touch the bathroom, then the failure of waterproofing is down to the OC. If you do renovate the bathroom, it’s up to you to make sure the job has been done properly. Why should neighbours be responsible for maintaining another owner’s possibly bodgy work?
By the way, you have asked this question in two different threads, which is a no-no, here. I have deleted one of 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.
Surely you have to be asked to grant entry first before you can be accused of hindering access?
Absolutely, or at least be subject to a Tribunal order. In an emergency, however – such as the all-too-common burst washing machine hose scenario – the scheme would possibly be compensated by its insurance.
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.
Is there another section in the SSM Act that speaks to this?
Not really. There are issues of personal privacy and security that would mitigate against any by-law or strata law requiring keys to be left with third parties. Having lived in a building where a corrupt building manager allowed security mates to enter apartments using special master keys I can see why there is no requirement for owners to leave keys with anyone else. This is the relevant section of the Act.
122 Power of owners corporation to enter property in order to carry out work
(1)An owners corporation for a strata scheme may, by its agents, employees or
contractors, enter on any part of the parcel of the scheme for the purpose of carrying
out the following work:
(a) work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation in
accordance with this Act (including work relating to window safety devices
and rectification work carried out under Part 11),
(b) work required to be carried out by the owners corporation by a notice given to
it by a public authority,
(c) work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation by an
order under this Act.
(2) An owners corporation for a strata scheme may, by its agents, employees or
contractors, enter on any part of the parcel for the purpose of determining whether
any work is required to be carried out by the owners corporation in accordance with
this Act.
(3) In an emergency, the owners corporation may enter any part of the parcel for those
purposes at any time.
(4) In a case that is not an emergency, the owners corporation may enter any part of the
parcel for those purposes with the consent of any occupier of that part of the parcel
or, if the occupier does not consent, in accordance with an order of the Tribunal under
this Division.
(5) A person must not obstruct or hinder an owners corporation in the exercise of its
functions under this section.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(6) An owners corporation is liable for any damage to a lot or any of its contents caused
by or arising out of the carrying out of any work, or the exercise of a power of entry,
referred to in this section unless the damage arose because the owners corporation
was obstructed or hindered.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 am not sure that NCAT will order the OC to pay anything. It will probably order them to fix the issue then may impose a penalty if it doesn’t. I have a feeling that once liability is established, you have to go to a district court to have payment orders issued. However, failure to fix common prperty is one of the possible triggers for the appointment of a statutory manager and maybe you could threaten the SC with that – and it doesn’t even require mediation in advance.
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.
Surely withholding keys from the OC when one is absent and in fact not passing the keys to a neighbour or friend is the very definition of hindering? No?
No. If it was, there would be a standard by-law to that effect. The section you quote is to deal with people who don’t want anyone coming into their apartments for reasons that range from privacy to criminal activity and in so doing interfere with essential or emergency repairs. The front door is common property so the OC has a lot of leeway in that regard.
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 act says the roll contains the owners name (that includes multiple names if there are two or more owners), address (for services of notices) and any appointed agent.
Surely the answer is to get the mother to ask the secretary/strata manager to change the address for services of notices. Many investor owners use their rental agents’ addresses 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.
I think the point is that Owners Corporations need to be sure they have adequate work safety cover for anyone working on common property and that means checking that employers or self-employed tradies are covered. I have yet to receive a coherent answer on what happens if a cleaner working for an Airbnb host slips and is injured in a puddle created by a defect in common property (like inadequate drainage).
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’m not sure whether applying for another order under s232 would require less evidence? For example on the basis that a resolution was passed but that the SC (as opposed to the OC) is refusing to action that resolution.
I would think that failure to follow the instructions of the OC was all the proof that you needed of failure to fulfil a function, which is what 232 is all about.
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.
why would the SC follow any resolutions if there are no ramifications when they don’t follow them …
The ramifications could and probably should be that the owners call an EGM, sack the committee and elect a new 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.
I thought they are required to follow these and where there is a disagreement between the SC and the OC, the OC view prevails ?
Have a look at Section 232(2) of the Act. It provides grounds for seeking order for demanding the scheme fulfils its duties. If you have already attempted mediation, you can proceed to NCAT.
And yes, the SC is required to follow the instruction of the OC. Also, in this case, I suspect the scheme is required to fix the windows then, if need be, establish later who is responsible for the cost.
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 thought they are required to follow these and where there is a disagreement between the SC and the OC, the OC view prevails ?
Have a look at Section 232(2) of the Act. It provides grounds for seeking order for demanding the scheme fulfils its duties. If you have already attempted mediation, you can proceed to NCAT.
And yes, the SC is required to follow the instraction of the OC. Also, in this case, I suspect the scheme is required to fix the windows then, if need be, establish later who is responsible for the cost.
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 90 of the Act (see below) says that costs ordered by the Tribunal against the Owners Corp must be paid for out of a special levy that must exclude the successful applicant.
However, the grounds on which the Tribunal will order costs are limited – it’s not just a question of who wins. Here according to LegalVision.com are the basic grounds on which costs might be awarded:- party’s conduct of the case has disadvantaged another party or unreasonably caused the case to take longer to resolve;
- party’s case was hopeless, frivolous, vexatious or misconceived;
- party has failed to cooperate with the tribunal to provide a just, quick and cheap resolution of the issues in dispute; or
- party has failed to follow the tribunals’ orders or directions.
“A finding of special circumstances generally requires some conduct that is out of the ordinary or grossly unreasonable,” says the website. “The awarding of costs is at the discretion of the tribunal. So the existence of any one of the above factors will not necessarily lead to the awarding of costs.”
As for repairs ordered by the Tribunal, you would probably have to pay your share as a member of the owners corp unless the Tribunal found grounds to order otherwise.How can I request no costs order to be made against me in case I lose?
You can’t but you can challenge a costs order if it doesn’t fulfil the criteria listed above.
If I go to NCAT against the OC and put the name of an OC member as respondent to present himself without lawyer or strata manager, will it be allowed?
If your dispute is with the owners corporation over a decision made at a properly constituted meeting of the OC or the strata committee, you can’t make it personal. However, you can object at the Tribunal to the other side having legal representation (although that probably won’t fly if you are challenging the OC or strata committee).
It sounds to me like you really need to consult an experienced strata lawyer as you clearly don’t know what you’re getting into. This might be suggested to you at your compulsory mediation session when you apply to Fair Trading.
Finally, you posted a chunk the same question in two separate threads – we call this double-dipping and it’s not allowed on this site. Your other post has been deleted and the questions combined here.
90 Contributions for legal costs awarded in proceedings between owners and owners corporation(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by one or more owners of lots against an owners corporation or by an owners corporation against one or more owners of lots (including one or more owners joined in third party proceedings).
(2) The court may order in the proceedings that any money (including costs) payable by an owners corporation under an order made in the proceedings must be paid from contributions levied only in relation to the lots and in the proportions that are specified in the order.
(3) The owners corporation must, for the purpose of paying the money ordered to be paid by it, levy contributions in accordance with the terms of the order and must pay the money out of the contributions paid in accordance with that levy.
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.
Correct me if I am wrong, but surely a court would hold that these policy exclusions targeting an “employee” or a “worker” of a maintenance company, would equally apply to a person who is self employed?
Aren’t the exclusions from the insurer’s liability rather than the legal liability of the owners corp? In which case, self-employed tradies would also be excluded, as you say.
It’s a common misconception in strata that if the insurer won’t cover an issue then the owner’s corp is not liable. In fact, it’s usually the opposite – the OC’s liability is unlimited in many if not most cases.
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.