Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Last year's memorandum on who is responsible for what says this:
[Fences], if they are shown as a thin, dotted or no line on the strata plan then they are treated in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act and are treated as follows.
i. Divides two lots. Each owner is responsible 50%/50%.
ii. Divides one lot from common property. Owner 50% and the OC 50%.
iii. Divides one lot from the adjoining property. Adjoining owner 50% and the OC 50%.
However, if the fence is shown as a thick black line on the strata plan, i.e. a boundary fence round common property, it's the OC's responsibility.
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.
Good luck to them – I'd call that a bullet dodged.
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.
Ooops, my bad!
You're right, generally speaking, electrical wiring that is only used for one lot is the responsibility of that lot owner but if the wiring in common property serves more than one lot it's the responsibility of the Owners Corp.
Sorry
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.
Agreed – but if the wiring is faulty and/or dangerous, your OC should be paying for the rewiting.
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.
It's the other way round – the Owners Corporation is required by law to raise levies to a whatever is required to pay the building's bills. But it's not the EC that does this – it's the owners (like you) at an AGM and that's the place to go and ask questions about levies for the coming year.
It's not unusual, however, for brand new apartments to be sold on the basis of unrealistically low levies – a scandal that government really should do something 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.
Unexpected Leigh said:
Jimmy, I venture to suggest the initial phone call to one of Flat Chat’s venerable expert strata lawyer contributors would elicit the advice, free, as to whether an EC could “seek legal advice and/or commence legal action on its own authority or does it require the approval of a general meeting”, wouldn’t you think?
Hey, Leigh, didn’t you also say: “In the final analysis free advice is worth what you pay for it in a scenario like this.”
Just kidding. In any case, you probably don't need to make that call – as I said before, the Act and Regulations are quite clear, there is a limit of $1000 a lot or $12,500 per strata plan, whichever is less, before the EC has to ask a general meeting for approval.
Section 15 of the regulations also waives the need for a General Meeting approval if the estimated costs of legal action are provided under the terms of the Legal Professions Act 2004.
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.
Every council has their own criteria for deciding what needs approval and what kind of approval they need. I would have thought the proposed use of the renovated space was more important than ther fact that the walss aren’t being moved. This is what you need to talk to your council about. Meanwhile, this is very much an issue for the EC as they are supposed to look after the whole building. Changing plumbing and flooring etc etc is totally an EC issue as it affects common property as well as individual amenity. Also, most councils are reluctant to approve works in Strata where the OC or EC has objected to the work. However, failure to object to the plan will be taken as tacit approval. Tlak to council, talk to your strata manager or a lawyer and then hold a meeting. The whole point of strata living is that we share – we don’t just take whatever opportunity arises to increase the value of our own homes at the expense of our neighbours.
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.
Sounds like good advice Unexpected … but isn't getting legal advice what the question was in the first place?
That would be one of them Catch-22s.
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.
Look, I agree but I have to ask, if this low visibility cat net is really such low visibility – who’s going to see 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.
Yes, the tenant has to tell the landlord/agent and the landlord/agent is required to tell the Owners Corp. But the tenant isn’t really required to tell the OC directly.
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.
If the spaces are designated as car parking spaces on the plan then it’s reasonable to assume that that is all they are permitted to be. If they ar designated as car parking and storage, then you have a different problem.
Then you need a by-law specifying what can and can’t be kept in car spaces (regardless of whether they are lots or on common property). The issues are fire safety and the look of the garage – nothing depresses unit prices quick like a garage space that looks like a tip.
My building has very strict rules and storage is only allowed in a box thing that’s called, conveniently, the “Box Thing”. Goods can be stored out of sight but cars can park with their bonnet under the box.
You may already have a by-law covering the guy who has stacked his space but I would think your fire safety inspectors would have something to say about 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.
Sub-committees certainly aren't illegal. ECs can take advice from whomever they want but only the members of subcommittees who are EC members have a vote.
Smart ECs use sub-committees (comprising at least one EC member and any non-EC members as are interested) as a way of spreading their knowledge base and introducing potential future EC members to the ins and outs of the EC world. Only those who feel threatened by other people's opinions would have any reason to object to sub-committees.
On this very point, the chairman of my building was recently fulminating that outsiders' opinions were “more trouble than they're worth” when someone pointed out that the last sub-committee approved by the EC had dealt with a gardening issue very efficiently … and (oops!) it had included his wife. Much hilarity ensued.
It really depends what you want in your EC – a lively exchange of (hopefully) informed opinions or a cluster of know-alls whose views – informed or otherwise – dare not be challenged.
Regarding the Act, there's nothing in it that I know of to cover sub-committees but then there is no need for any legislation. They're not getting paid, they don't have any specific voting power and their views can only be expressed via EC members or, in the case of non-EC members – at the invitation of the EC.
Sounds like sour grapes from someone whose opinions have been over-ruled.
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.
183A refers to “Orders relating to caretaker agreements”. Only the Owners Corporation can challenge a caretaker agreement BUT unless a general meeting of the Owners Corporation over-rules the Exec Committee, the EC's decisions are taken as being the OC's.
I may be wrong – and I hope someone corrects me if I am – but provided the cost of the legal action is less than $12,500 (or $1,000 per unit, whichever is less) the EC can get legal advice for a challenge on the Caretaker Contract. However, if a General Meeting is called that tells the EC not to take action, then it can't.
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.
If the walls you are talking about are common property, then yes. If they aren't, then no. They will be common property if they are either adjoining another apartment or are essential to the integrity of the lot (ie, prevent flooding from bathroom). But only your strata plan can tell you.
Re your regrets, go to your window, look at your view (if you have one) or at least your location. Think about the added security you get from being in a strata block, then ask yourself how much it would cost to have a free-standing home that offered this and all the other benefits of strata living. The trade-off of having to observe a few common-sense rules is well worth it. Just because there are some negatives to strata living doesn't mean all strata living is bad.
Feel 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.