[Jimmy-T]

Shortcrust wrote:

These are excellent questions which were not raised let alone addressed in the program. I feel the issue of strata mismanagement by agents, committees and (from what I discovered on my short time involved in owning a strata unit), lethargic politicians needs a far deeper and wider investigation.

You have seven states and territories each with their own very distinctive strata laws. Within that spread, you have corruption, conflict of interests, owner apathy and ignorance, defects, discrimination, self-interest and uncertainty.  “The Strata Trap” was a pretty good start at tackling a problem of Herculean proportions.

For what it’s worth, I think our politicians across Australia believe people who choose to live in apartments deserve what they get.  Just look at how they made Airbnb our problem, not theirs.

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]

StopfordKid wrote:

(a) What was motivating Mr Lee to carry on like this – surely it wasn’t just some crazy power trip,

We shouldn’t assume anything, but we know from other examples that the nexus whereby a strata manager keeps the committee in power, and the committee keeps the strata manager in a job, is prevalent throughout strata. Mr Lee was strata manager and chair, secretary and treasurer of that building.

The allegations of the owners agreeing not to pursue legal action against the developer for defects probably bear closer scrutiny but plenty of schemes have decided to do exactly that because litigation is always expensive bu not always effective.

 

(b) What was his role at that building apart from being the committee chair (+ other committee roles). Is he also a property owner in the building? what are his other associated interests etc?,

Yes, he is also an owner, or at least he said he was at that fractious meeting.

(c) Where else do his tentacles spread to – either directly or indirectly?

He and his wife have strata management companies and he is still operating in several buildings, as is William Wang, for that matter, while his appeal against being “struck off” is heard by the Tribunal.

 

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]

The fact that some owners have a balcony is reflected in their increased Unit Entitlements (or should be). Therefore, in very simple terms, owners with balconies pay more in their levies. However, there are also collective benefits in maintaining balconies properly, including but not limited to the appearance and structural integrity of the whole building, both of which can affect the value of all the properties in the block.

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]

Quirky wrote:

Actually, there are a variety of approaches when it comes to renovations, and renovation by-laws.

True, but the original question was, who pays for an EGM to approve a by-law that only benefits one owner? The circumstances you describe in your block clearly don’t apply in 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]

I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.  The Tribunal can rule who is responsible for the repairs  but I don’t think they can award compensation. I may be wrong – and someone please correct me if I am –  but for that you would have to go to your local court to pursue a debt. It may in fact be a two-stage process. As for your ceasing to be an owner, a quick call to a strata lawyer would be worth your 10 cents.

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 have answered your own question in your final comment.

Unless the owner has gathered the signatures of 25 per cent of owners or if the OC can put up an argument that the by-law would benefit the majority of owners, then the renovator should pay all the 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.

[Jimmy-T]

Shortcrust wrote:

According to the SM, there is no document mentioning wooden floors or any insulation installed.

Is there a by-law?  If not, the previous owner has done nothing wrong.

Shortcrust wrote:

apparently my kids’ piano and saxophone playing can be clearly and loudly heard by neighbours.

Hmmm. You are joking, aren’t you? If you want your kids to be able to practise at home, you should be looking at soundproofing the apartment, not just the floor.  Or at least one room. Carpets on the floor and special sound-baffling wall and ceiling panels would be the go.

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]

Try taking your shoes off when you are at home.  It makes a huge difference – lots of people do 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]

tina wrote:

If the owners corporation does not have the money, they would have to raise a special levy.

Or get a strata loan…

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]

Quirky wrote:

if it turns out that a previous owner did unauthorised work that contributed to the current problem, then you, as the ongoing owner, could be liable for some of the cost of its remediation, as well as contributing to the levy costs.

Generally speaking, if changes to common property have been made without a by-law assignng responsibility for the upkeep to the owners making the changes, the responsibilty reverts to the OC.  This is a default position that is intended to make sure that OCs require owners to get by-laws for changes.  Sadly, too many changes are made on a nod and a wink. Subsequent owners can be faced with the dilemma of accepting a new by-law or having to allow the OC to return the property to its original state, albeit at the OC’s expense.

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]

Quirky wrote:

As stated above, this type of dispute cannot delay the sale.

In theory.  But strata records where someone is disputing changes to common property will put a lot of potential buyers off.  It may not prevent the sale but it could certainly put a dent in the potential sale price.

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]

Quirky wrote:

That guide gives you a good introduction for how to live in a strata building, and how to be part of a strata committee.

But does it tell you how to behave at a strata meeting and how to conduct a meeting and moderate bad behaviour?

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]

deaston wrote:

Looks like my options are NCAT, obtain legal advice or let the matter go.

There is a mandatory step before going to NCAT and that is mediation at Fair Trading.  This fourth option costs nothing and may give you a clearer sense of whether or not this is worth pursuing.

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]

tina wrote:

Woodwalker, the rules for proxies are documented in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Schedule 1, Division 2, Part 4, section 26). I copy / pasted them here.  I highlighted the bits that answer your questions.

Two things that would render this reply somewhat irrelevant (but kudos for the research).  Woodwalker has established in earlier posts that they are in the ACT so NSW regs don’t apply.  But if they did apply, I think they are talking about committee meetings and the proxy rules quoted are for general meetings.

I’d appreciate it if WW would clarify both points.

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 the balcony is common property (which it probably is, in NSW at least) it’s the OC’s responsibility to have it fixed – which may mean proving it was damaged by the owner then charging them for the work.

If it’s lot property, the OC should take action against the owner for allowing common property and lot property elsewhere to be damaged.

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