[Jimmy-T]

In Victoria, you don’t NEED to have an executive committee if there are fewer than 13 lots in your block but you can choose to have one.  However, if you do get the Owners Corp to choose to have one (at your next AGM), you will have to find two other members as the minimum size of an EC in Vic is three .

There’s a lot of very valuable information on ECs and other aspects of strata management in Victoria 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]

@Piat said:

It seems unless signage is displayed to say that illegal parking is prohibited there is little anyone can do about the situation. You could always find someone you know to use the space during the day if they require it.

Like these guys, maybe? 

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]

@drshelley said:

Can anyone tell me why when they install timber floors in new apartments there doesn’t seem to be any problem.

We have timber floors – top of the line gear on 11mm insualtion.  Imagine our shock when our downstairs neighbour told us “of course we can hear you!”

The thing is, we take our shoes off, we don’t run around or jump up and down. In other words, if you are  so keen to be a ‘go-ahead couple” modify your lifestyle and have little consideration for your neighbours.

Or, you should tell this selfish besom “go ahead … and move out.”

Hold the line, my friend.  They are in the wrong, you are in the right.

My compromise would be, since they have signalled that they have no intention of changing their behaviour, that you will let them put wall-to-wall carpet and underlay on top of the floorboards provided the promise never to remove it.

And pass this message on from the Flat Chat Crew:  Go-ahead couples in 2013 do their research and know that doing stuff on the cheap in strata never ever works.

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 is right – the owners Corp is liable for the repair and maintenance of the structure plus rapirs to any fixtures or fitins (including paitwork) damaged while the repairs are being carried out.  Unless they have a document signed by you saying you will pay for the kitchen and carpet, they can go whistle.

Any hesitation on their part to enter into a binding agreement with you on what they will do and how much they will pay should be met with action at the CTTT to obtain an order to force them to fulfil their styatutory duties.

All that said, I would be concerned that the problem isn’t more widespread.  Your EC should be organising testing for the whole building.  I’m betting some of them are already planning to sell up before the whole picture is revealed.

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]

If you are in NSW (and just about anywhere else) it is the owners both present and by proxy who can vote (provided their levies are up to date).

Owners entitled to vote can nominate anyone they want – whether they are an owner or not – although co-owners can’t nominate themselves (but one can nominate the other, providing her or she isn’t standing for election).

You can call for a poll vote (based on unit entitlements) and you can ask to check the validity of all the proxies – they have to be on the correct form and submitted more than 24 hours before the meeting.

This, by the way, is where proxy harvesting really kicks in.  The EC round up all their proxies, elect only the people they want on the committee, control the flow of information – only good news, never bad – and make sure they get all the proxies again the next time round.

Power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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]

@Kangaroo said:
My understanding is that the 1974 changes to the Act, for new stratas, made balconies Common Property and moved the dividing line between Lot and Common Property from the middle of common walls to the inner surface. Therefore doors leading onto balconies were Common Property for new strata plans, but remained part of the Lot for existing Stratas.

Which brings me back to the point – jamezb is being asked to pay a share of repairing something he doesn’t own, either individually or collectively.  However, under section 64 (see below) the Owners Corp is entitled to repair or replace lot owners property if they need to do so to protect the integrity of the building.

So Jamezb is stuck with his share of the bill based on Unit Entitlements, rather than actual share of the benefit.  But if the windows were common property, the same would apply.

This is what the Act says:

64 What power does an owners corporation have to carry out work at its own expense?

(1)  An owners corporation may carry out such work as is necessary to rectify any of the following defects:

(a)  any structural defect in any part of a building comprised in a lot that affects or is likely to affect the support or shelter provided by that lot for another lot in the building or the common property,

(2)  An owners corporation may carry out work referred to in this section at its own expense if the cost of the work cannot be recovered from some other person.

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]

@just get on with it said:

The incident in question is clearly accidental and was not in any way malicious so why would the OC not believe they should be responsible for the repair? Is there a difference between a branch accidentally blowing into a window and someone accidentally running into the window?

I’m not disagreeing with anything you said but what if, say, the glass door was broken as a result of some contributory act by the resident?  Maybe  you were demonstrating how to tackle in rugby, or you had too much to drink and stumbled.  Or (as happened to me once), you’d had too many reds and you heard someone scream in the street and ran out, forgetting there was a door in the way.*

In the first two instances, you have definitely contributed to the accident.  The third is a tricky call.

By the way, I was watching the second series of Veep tonight and the fictional Vice President walked through a glass door.  How do we know it was fictional?  Nobody got sued.

* I took the entire door with me on to the balcony but the glass stayed intact. I don’t know whether or not I was hurt as I was feeling no pain. 

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:
The NSW Act dosn’t make it as clear as the QLD one does

(3) A policy of insurance taken out under this section—
(b) must provide for the reinstatement of property to its condition when new.

This is from the QLD act but I believe it is universal throughout Oz.

We have asked you many times on this website not to extrapolate Queensland law to apply to the rest of Australia.  In fact,  here you provide a very good example of how Queensland law differs from NSW law. 

Your 3b states that: A policy of insurance … must provide for the reinstatement of property to its condition when new.

In NSW the law says a damage policy is to provide for the repair of damage … so that the repaired or restored portion, is in a condition no worse or no less extensive than that portion or its condition when that portion was new.

In other words, it shouldn’t be any worse that it was before it was damaged.

This isn’t a case of the NSW law being less clear.  It simply allows for the repairs not to always return damaged property to ‘as new’ condition.

But all that is beside the point.

There is a definitive statement of what is covered by building insurances in NSW and what isn’t.

Internal doors in NSW are not covered by strata building insurance UNLESS they are either defined as common property (unlikely) or damaged by an event that comes under the general remit of Owners Corporation responsibility.  

That’s it. Enough said.  Let’s move on. 

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]

@carefulinvestor said:
It is the management of the process and the respect for others which makes this work. We need to look at ways of getting this to be the case with these kinds of arrangements rather than trying to shut them down.

OK, but the difference between an hotel and an apartment is that you don’t have staff running the residential building 24 hours, seven days a week.  Who pays for the management of these problems? And why should permanent residents have to put up with any unnecessary disruption to their lives until the problem is managed? 

There is a whole tower block in the southern end of the city that was designed and built for short-term rentals. From what I hear, it’s never short of clients.  

Short-term lets in residential buildings are undercutting bona fide hotels, guest houses and executive rentals for the simple reason that they leach off all the good things about apartment living and contribute proportionately less than other owners compared to the wear and tear involved.

Why would anyone in their right mind allow investors to bring complete strangers, whom even the landlords and their agents have never met, into their homes in the hope that they will behave themselves?

It’s time everyone grew up and started accepting that apartments are permanents homes and not just a stop-gap on the way to a McMansion 

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 what the Lands Dept/Strata Community Australia /Owners Corporation Network “Who Owns What” Memorandum says:

2.14 General – Owners responsibility
a. Built-in wardrobes or kitchen, laundry and other cupboards

… and …

h. Internal doors

Now, I know the Memorandum isn’t law and it has a few quirks but it’s a pretty clear indication of how the powers that be think.

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:

Even if the door was an internal door (not common property) the Strata building insurance would still cover it, but the person who damaged it would be up for the excess.

Really?  Down here in NSW an internal door is the owners’ responsibility and their home and contents insurance might cover it but the pretty sure the building insurers wouldn’t touch 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.

[Jimmy-T]

@Whale said:
jamezb – you’re correct in that a 1974 change in applicable Legislation (in NSW) meant that in most instances any walls (and anything in them such as windows and doors) located between parts of a Lot, such as between a living area and a balcony, were part of the Lot and therefore the responsibility of the Owner.

 

I thought it was the other way round – that windows and balcony doors ceased to be the property of the owner and became common property, as they are 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.

[Jimmy-T]

@SMO said:
It is a general misconception that you require 75% of all voters present (either personally or by proxy) to vote in favour of a proposed motion. In fact a special resolution is passed only after a poll is taken at the meeting and not more than 25% in value of the votes, by persons present (either personally or by proxy) and entitled to vote, are against the motion. 

The only misconception is in the phrase ‘of those voting’. Perhaps some poeople think you have to have 75 percent of the owners in favour, or not more than 25 percent against – rather than just those proportions of valid votes but it’s still a mountain to climb.

The reality is that many Owners Corps are dominated by EC members holding large numbers of proxies so it can be very hard to get those numbers required to change a by-law if the EC doesn’t want it.

I could list numerous SCS matter where the Adjudicator or Member allowed an animal after the OC refused to allow the animal.

What is SCS? And why not list some of these matters?

The reform does not address the issue expressed in the submissions. 
Feel free to explain how it does.

If you are talking about the default pets by-law, it places the onus on the developer or Owners Corporation to at least think about how they want to manage pets in their strata scheme, with the default position being that they are allowed.

Right now, developers are locking their owners into a standard set of by-laws that strata newbies don’t even read before the approve them (by a simple majority).  After than, they require a 75 percent vote to change them. Thye most significant effect of this change is that it will make people stop and think about having pets in their building.

 

 

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’m a bit confused.  If the by-laws say the windows aren’t common property and are the owners’ responsibility then there is no question of the cost of their repair being shared based on unit entitlements.

If you are all having the windows fixed at the same time — which would save money – then you should insist that costs are shared on a price per window and per sliding door.  That would more accurately reflect the fair share based on actual ownership.

The contractor will almost certainly have priced the job on this basis so it shouldn’t be too hard to get the figures.

 

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]

You can have mediation without going through the Fair Trading system.  Community Justice Centres provide this service for free but the outcomes may not be legally binding.

In the case of a dispute that has gone to a formal complaint, the Notice To Comply is served by the Owners Corp (either via the EC or the strata manager).  In this case the EC is the plaintiff, not you.

The other option is that you or the EC can concurrently run a case at the CTTT for orders against the upstairs neighbour.  A case for CTTT orders has a compulsory mediation at the start of the case but neither side is compelled to engage in any meaningful way – you can turn up and say nothing.

Both parties can agree to a legally binding agreement at this stage.

If you want to go for orders and the EC doesn’t, I would go to mediation and get agreement that whoever is found to be at fault should pay the cost of the acoustic testing, to be conducted by someone of your choosing.

This idea that the person who is suffering the noise should have to pay for the testing is nonsense.  You can tell if a floor is too noisy just by using your ears (supported by the testimony of visitors to your apartment and other neighbours, including members of the EC).

Acoustic testing is more likely to be used by the  person who installed the hard floors to prove it couldn’t be as noisy as their neighbour claims. 

Regarding the the question of who is the plaintiff if they don’t pay the fine, penalty disputes are specifically excluded from mediation in the CTTT orders process.  You simply make your claim for an order for them to pay any fine imposed by the CTTT.  It’s a simple matter: they were fined and they didn’t pay – what’s to be discussed?

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