Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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.
As with most things in Strata, the answer is never as simple as yes or no. You have to look at the Act, then the Regulations and what you get is that you don't need a General Meeting to approve legal action if the estimeted cost of the action is less than $1000 per lot or $12,500 in total – unless the legal action is to recover unpaid levies. There are other complications but that covers most possibilities.
The reason pursuing unpaid levies is exempt is that the defaulter becomes liable for all the costs associated with recovering the debt. The reason the limit is so low – $12,500 for any developments of over 13 lots – is depending on which side of the customer-developer divide you sit – either to prevent litigation mad ECs frittering away the life savings of poor unprotected retirees OR making it almost impossible to force bodgy developers to deliver to new home owners anything resembling what they paid for.
Anyway, this is what the Acts says (but remember, it's subject to the regulation):
80D Legal action to be approved by general meeting
(1) An owners corporation or executive committee of an owners corporation must not seek legal advice or the provision of any other legal services, or initiate legal action, for which any payment may be required unless a resolution is passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation approving the seeking of the advice or services or the taking of that action.
(2) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to exempting any type of legal service or legal action from the operation of this section.
The Regulations (2010) say:
15 Exemptions from need for approval for certain legal action
(1) The seeking of legal advice, the provision of legal services or the taking of legal action is exempt from the operation of section 80D of the Act if the reasonably estimated cost of seeking the legal advice, having the legal services provided or taking the legal action would not exceed:
(a) an amount equal to the sum of $1,000 for each lot in the strata scheme concerned (excluding utility lots), or
(b) $12,500, whichever is the lesser.(2) In a case where the cost, or estimated cost, of seeking legal advice, having legal services provided or taking legal action has been:
(a) disclosed by the Australian legal practitioner concerned in
accordance with the Legal Profession Act 2004, or
(b) set out in a proposed costs agreement under that Act, the reasonably estimated cost of seeking the legal advice, having the legal services provided or taking the legal action is taken, for the purpose of this clause, to be the cost or estimated cost so disclosed or set out.
(3) The seeking of legal advice, the provision of legal services or the taking of legal action is exempt from the operation of section 80D of the Act if its purpose is to recover unpaid contributions and interest under section 80 of the Act.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 can't believe owners corps and strata managers are still giving out this flawed advice. While painting the inside walls is, indeed your responsibility under normal circumstances – if damage has been cause by a failure to maintain common property, then the OC has to make good. It's a simple as someone accidentally bashing your car – they have to pay for the repairs. There is no argument with this – ask your EC if they want to organise the painting or should you just do it and bill them. Either way, they pay.
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 depends what it says in the exclusive use by-law, so assume nothing; for instance, you can probably agree with your OC to remove the pergola.
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 Teys Lawyers newsletter (there's a link on this website) is pretty good but there may be others
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 a bit of a grey area but if it’s an ‘administration charge’ rather than a fine then many believe this is legitimate, especially if it’s backed up by a by-law.
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 OC has two years to register the by-law with the Department of Lands (or whatever it’s calling itself this week).
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.
Your EC is misreading this document. It's actually saying THEY are responsible for everything for three metres above the concrete in common property.
The land department’s memorandum on who’s responsible for what in strata says balcony seal and tiles are the OC’s responsibility. Bear in mind that might not apply to your building but in the absence of anything that says it doesn’t, I’d say that was the default position.
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 cover referred to here is, for instance, the balcony above the one you are referring to which forms a ceiling or roof.
If the balcony is common property then the tiles covering it are too (unless clearly stated otherwise in the by-laws).
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.