Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
There is a lot of flexibility in Strata living … it just doesn't seem to have reached you building … yet.
Do you have the standard by-laws that include this clause:
5 Damage to common property
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot must not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property without the approval in writing of the owners corporation.
(2) An approval given by the owners corporation under subclause (1) cannot authorise any additions to the common property.
(3) This by-law does not prevent an owner or person authorised by an owner from installing:
(a) any locking or other safety device for protection of the owner’s lot against intruders, or
(b) any screen or other device to prevent entry of animals or insects on the lot, or
(c) any structure or device to prevent harm to children.
If you have, I can't recommend that you go ahead and install the net as a child safety measure … however it might be what I would do.
But seriously, if you really, really think your cat net isn't a major intrusion on the look of the building – and I mean if you think you could prove that at a tribunal – why not go ahead and install the net and let them prove otherwise? Let them make the running – IF you really think they have no complaint.
This Forum is awash with stories of people who have done the wrong thing and got away with it. If you think you're doing the right thing, then 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.
Jef said:
Some years ago the then Executive Committee passed a motion that of the six (6) visitor parking spaces three (3) could be used by both residents and/or visitors while the other three (3) were specifically for visitors.
Not trying to be a smartypants here, but declaring that three designated Visitor spaces can be used by residents sounds like 'hiving off' to me. Of course people with more cars than spaces are going to use them – did anyone seriously imagine anything else would happen?
If your EC is going to get all legal on rogue parkers, they really need to get their own house in order and scrap what sounds like an non-compliant decision to change the status of the visitor spaces.
I'm pretty sure that there are six visitor spaces because someone in the planning department has a formula based on the number of apartments in your building and likelihood of them being required. Just because a space is sometimes, even often, empty doesn't mean it's free.
And on the question of telling the landlords to tell their tenants not to park there, why jump through all those extra hoops?
The EC is entitled to write directly to tenants telling them that a) by parking in visitor car spaces they are breaching the building's by-laws and b) by breaching the by-laws they are in breach of their tenancy agreements and could be evicted.
I'm guessing that would get their attention.
And I hope the same diligence would be applied to owner-residents who also park illegally.
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 don’t think strata police is a good idea, nor do I think it’s simple nor would it be particularly effective. There are laws and by-laws and if they were enforced with a semblance of logic and fairness, we would all be a lot better off.
Also, I think the creation of StrataCops would just about finish off prospective strata buyers who are already nervous about the whole business of moving into communities.
That said, a strata Ombudsman, who could overrule some of the insanities that emerge from the CTTT and had the power to declare unfair contracts void would get my 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.
Thanks for your appreciation. By the way, his name is Whale – StrataGuru is a highly sought-after ranking on this Forum and so far only three members have made the grade (purely arbritrarily set by me).
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 Chair Man said:
Hi all, I'd like to know if anyone is aware about a strata which held 4 (or 3, for that matter) general meetings within less than a year. This is not a simple curiosity question. As you can guess, we are going to have our 4th GM. I read a lot of posts on this forum where decent members of ECs complain about unfair distribution of workload.
A large number of general meetings being held in one year can be both an indication of a dysfunctional EC or, indeed, one that's doing the right thing to sort out a number of pressing issues. There are certain things that can only be decided at general meetings – like taking legal action or changing strata managers – and if you happen to have a few issues running concurrently (as many new strata plans do) the worst accusation that can be thrown at you is bad planning for not scheduling them all at the same time (if indeed that was an option).
There are two ways to call a general meeting – the signatures of more than 25 percent of owners or a simple majority vote of the EC. The former tends to happen when there is dissent within the strata plan about the way it's being run, the later is usually a matter of required procedure to get things done.
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.
And here’s a couple of options to be going on with: https://www.catmeshenclosures.com.au/cat-enclosures.html
https://www.catsafe.com.au/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.
That’s right but the real issue is enforcement. The council aren’t going to send compliance officers around to check who’s using your visitor car spaces. However, if they know their DA has been breached, there will be fun and games the next time anyone in this building – or the OC itself – puts in a DA.
Also there is a simple principle that by-laws can’t overturn superior laws (in this case, the laws under which the DA was originally provided). In fact, unless I’m reading this wrong, the decision to hive off the parking spaces is illegal on that basis and should be struck off immediately.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.
sbbkbb said:
It's a big company with branches all over the country, so if you can't trust them, who can you trust then 🙂 crazy…..
Don't confuse the strata manager with the strata management company. There are some excellent strata management companies with crap managers and vice versa. That's why when you are hring a new SM you should ask to meet the person who'll be handling your account, not just the owner of the 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.
Yeah, I knew all about that and I was invited to make a submission. But I will believe the changes when I see them. There are so many powerful and vested interests it's impossible to tell what will emerge from all this.
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.
Are they making by-law enforcement compulsory in NSW? Did I miss something? I hope they are.
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.
This from Fair Trading:
For the purposes of the Act, a person who acts as a … strata managing agent must hold a strata managing agent’s licence.
A strata managing agent is a person (whether or not such person carries on any other business) who, for reward (whether monetary or otherwise), exercises any function of an owners corporation within the meaning of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 or any other function that is prescribed by the regulations under the Act.
The key to whether or not they need a license is whether or not they get financial or other rewards. That means a member of the EC can fulfill the functions of a strata manager provided they don't take any reward or payment for 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.
Insurances are going though the roof in Queensland due to massive pay-outs following various natural disasters. However, there is a suspicion that some insurers or agents may be taking advantage of this. Have a look HERE … and HERE and 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.
Aaah, now I get it. And in Strata, more than anywhere else, the simpler the better.
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 dont know if you are taking me too literally or not but I think my objection to the lack of compulsion to enforce by-laws is pretty clear if you look HERE. But, hey, I shouldn't assume that everyone has read everything I write – that would be the height of arrogance.
The enforcement of by-laws is so arbitrary that if I was ever pinged for some minor infraction (not that I ever do anything wrong … EVER) I would just claim it was victimisation because I'm sure I could quickly list half a dozen more serious issues that had gone unaddressed.
Also, this was one of my submissions to the recent online forum on Strata Law reform:
Make the enforcement of by-laws obligatory rather than optional (after giving everyone a chance to adopt a new set of by-laws if the current ones don’t quite fit). Optional enforcement leads to confusion and unnecessary conflict in strata developments. People buy into buildings expecting the rules in the by-laws to be in force – that should not be at the whim of the ruling executive committee. It would help a great deal if the CTTT would adjudicate on the simple question of whether or not a by-law has been breached – not whether or not that member thinks it’s a good by-law. OCs can change by-laws if the majority don’t like them but there should be a one-off opportunity to adopt model by-laws (plus local variations) before the compulsory by-laws are brought in.
I think my position on that is pretty clear. It works in other States so there's not reason it can't work 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.
Ah, Urban, you've picked my 'game'. I can see where you're going with this but the fatal flaw is in your phrase ” … surely Executive Committees must have to get involved…” Well, yes, they should and they often do but for whatever reason, way too many choose not to.
As a long-time denizen of this corner of the web, you must surely remember the drummer boy in the garage who drove the neighbour to distraction. How about the woman who couldn't get residents to stop parking on common property, blocking access to her garage, because members of the EC liked to be able to park on common property too? And then there were the residents hounded by their neighbours because they dared to complain about children playing noisily on common property outside their window (which was a clear breach of at least two of the scheme's by-laws).
In all the above cases the EC took the Pontius Pilate option and said “sort it out amongst yourselves” … as they could because there is no obligation to even respond to complaints, let alone pursue them.
The one bright spot in this is that any strata resident – owner or tenant – can apply to Fair Trading and then the CTTT for mediation or adjudication. The question is, why should they have to go out on a limb to enforce what are, after all, agreed community standards? Are we communities or just a bunch of individuals playing the “I'm all right, Jack” card … until someone plays it against us
At least in the case of the Treasurer buying the common property, they probably thought the deal was kosher because they fulfilled all the requirements of basic strata meeting regulations. But in this as in all other things, there is a higher law than the Strata Act and (thank heavens) a higher court than the CTTT.
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.