Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Your plan sounds like a good compromise.
Find out the mechanisms (by-law, Executive Committee ruling or building management decision) by which the designation was established and then removed. The removal may not be permitted if, for instance, it was designated in a by-law.
Then propose a motion for the next EC meeting or AGM re-instating the designation with the restrictions you suggested.
If you need help contact an advocacy service like City and Inner West Disability Advocacy, Suite 8, Level 1, 330 Wattle Street, Ultimo NSW 2007. Tel 1800 629 072 or 02 9281 8699
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.
Anybody, even non-owners, can be a member of an EC if they are legitimately nominated by an owner and elected by the other owners (if an election is required). However, they can't be nominated by a co-owner who is standing for election themselves or, indeed, nominate themselves unless their name is first on the strata roll.
Someone who owns a quarter share in a flat may only be an investor and they may be on the EC to look after the interests of the other co-owners. It's unusual but absolutely legit.
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 guess it’s the modern equivalent of the dreaded keys down the drain disaster. An expensive slice of bad luck, for sure.
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.
Whether or not an Executive Committee has a 'duty of care' is something that would need to be established by legal precedent. However, under NSW law, the EC and/ or Owners Corporation has no obligation to enforce by-laws (except where the pertain to their legal obligations under the Strata Act, for instance, to maintain common property).
However, any owner or tenant can take action through Fair Trading and the CTTT to have by-laws enforced.
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.
You're a bit off the mark, there.
The chair has every right to vote at an Executive Committee meeting – they just don't have a casting vote if there is a tie.
EC votes are strictly one EC member, one vote – there is no poll voting based on unit entitlements or use of proxies from non-EC members or extra votes based on being an office bearer.
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 not a way round it but these payments can only be made retrospectively. If owners don't believe the recipients deserve the payments they can always vote against them or amend the amounts to be paid. I'm not aware of any limit and I would expect any potential recipient to absent themselves from the vote as a courtesy to other owners.
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 owners can prove the tiles had been changed before he bought and the courtyard is common property, then they are the responsibility of the Owners Corporation. If the owner can't prove the tiles were there when he bought or if the courtyard is on his title, (ie, not common property) then it's his problem.
Assuming for a moment that tiles are common property and were there when he bought, I would make two offers – either the OC reinstates the tiles to being the same as the other courtyards or you repair them on condition that he takes responsibility (via a special resolution by-law) for their future maintenance.
This, by the way, is another reason why we should never allow changes to common property to a “nod and a wink”.
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.
There is a chance, albeit a remote one (no pun intended), that this may be covered by your home and contents insurance. Otherwise, I can't see any basis under which your owner's corporation would be liable for your accident.
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 you parking there permanently when it's supposed to be a visitor's or customer car space? Or is it attached to the property?
Either way, there's a good chance that the disabled space was part of the development approval for the complex and you can probably get the council to insist that it be reinstated.
However, if it is intended as a visitor or customer car space, you really shouldn't be using it as your permanent parking spot.
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 all comes down to liability versus responsibility versus getting the job done and Austman touched on it with this comment:
It then becomes the OC's insurance company's decision to decide to try to recover these costs from the lot owner.
If you take the simple concept from common law that whoever causes the damage then has to pay for repairs, then if the pipe is the owner's responsibility, then so is the damage to common property. Whether or not the CP insurers want to pursue that is up to them but an Owners Corporation that made a lot of claims for damage caused by owners might find their premiums rocketing after a while.
There seems to be a bit of confusion (generally) around the difference between liability and insurance cover. Just because your insurance doesn't cover something doesn't mean you're not liable for repairs – if it's your fault, you have to pay whether you are insured or not, and that applies to individuals and Owners Corporations alike.
But you'd be amazed how often we hear the argument that the OC's insurance doesn't cover this so the owner has to 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.
I can't help wondering if there isn't also a health and safety/insurance issue with one adult supervising 10 kids (especially when they admit they can't control them).
The kids must obviously be using the pool as a toilet – otherwise who's looking after them when their minder takes the littlies to the bathroom
What you need is a set of guidlines for the use of the pool backed up by a by-law. If I were drawing up the rules I'd say four kids max per supervising adult and no non-residents (excepting overnight guests of residents).
And maybe I'm being cynical, but it strikes me that the same people who cry “nanny state” when you issue rules like this are often the first to claim damges for negligence when there's a serious accident (NB: this is backed be zero scientific research or evidence).
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 think it's fair to say the acoustics of every building are different which is one of the reasons it's unwise to create prescriptive by-laws that either don't sufficiently address the issues of noise or, alternatively, are so draconian that they could, feasibly, be challenged at the CTTT or in court.
The only real test is whether the occupants of one unit disturb the occupants of another unit because of their floor covering and the way they behave in the apartment.
One of the isses with hard flooring is that they reflect noise into the air (if you want to sse this at its worst, go to a busy cafe with concrete floors and low ceilings and try to have a conversation). Some of noise, obviously, will be transferred through walls, ceilings and pipes (which is why some buildings ban you from playing your radio in the bathroom – true!).
There is also a question of indirectly transmitted noise where, theoretically, vibrations from a floor can be transmitted via a wall to another wall above or below. And until someone does a study on the transmission of noise via the structure of a building, all of this will remain a mystery.
Plainly and simply, nothing absorbs noise like carpet but that shouldn't mean that we all have to re-rug our floors. However, we shouldn't expect our neighbours to put up with excessive noise because we want a trendier or easier to clean floor.
If I were putting together a by-law on flooring, it would say that you can put down whatever you like provided you sign a contract agreeing to rip it back up again if it proves to be a nuisance to other owners (by any reasonable measure).
Put the responsibility back on the renovater to either get it right first time or keep fixing it until it is right (with some guidance on what has been shown to be effective and warnings about how cheap flooring with inadequate insulation end up costing more when they have to be replaced).
For ground floor flats with vertical and lateral noise transmission, you might think about installing acoustic walls and ceilings which are often a lot cheaper than you'd 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.
Have a look at this state government website HERE. It seems to be saying that the fan has to be off after 10 pm.
Also, your basic by-laws – unless they are very unusual – should make it an offence to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of other lots, etc etc.
Perhaps it's time to add some heft to that note and explain to your neighbours that they are breaking both Environmental Protection laws and by-laws, both of which could lead to hefty fines.
But really, since this affects more than one unit, it should be your EC that's or strata manager who's issuing the friendly warnings.
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 not just the EC who can enforce the by-laws – any owner, or indeed a tenant, can go to Fair Trading and ask for a Notice to Comply to be issued against these parking space land-grabbers.
The question is, is it a matter of principle or is there a genuine shortage of visitor's parking spaces. The law doesn't make the distinction – it's either a visitor's parking space or it isn't – but your neighbours will if they see you as more of a trouble maker than a problem solver.
Your neighbour seems to make up the rules as she goes along but until a majority of people in your community object to the fact that she and her family are parking their cars at everyone else's expense, then you may be better to live with it … or keep it in your locker until such times as you fall foul of the by-laws yourself.
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 fair point but I think it's really quite simple – clause 8 is headlined “Voting rights may not be exercised if contributions not paid.”
It then goes on to say “A vote at a general meeting … does not count unless payment has been made…”
That covers all the bases for my money. So voting rights 'may not be exercised' AND the vote 'does not count' if you are unfinancial. I'd go to the barricades to say that people who turn up at general meetings who are unfinancial don't count towards the quorum or any vote for or against, (except for issues that require a unanimous vote which are spelled out in the Act).
It's quite clear that the intention of the Act is to exclude people who are not financial from taking part in meetings. Let's not muddy the water any more than it already is by splitting hairs over wording.
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.