Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Well, you tried to do the right thing. Go for it! And tell your nasty (and very stupid neighbour) that we are watching.
You could also tell the strata manager's secretary that you have the same rights as an owner when it comes to by-laws and she has no right to treat you like a second-class citizen.
By the way, the old “I'm an owner so I can do what I like” line is getting a bit tired these days. It's not true now and it never has been.
Here's a rejoinder: “If you don't like restrictions, you're free to go and live in a house. Try parking in your neighbours driveway then.”
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.
Billen Ben said:
Jimmy loves to talk about the owners empowering things by special resolution but i have some concerns over this type of democracy, it can disadvantage people because they do not have the numbers.
If fees were by unanimous resolution then perhaps that would be OK but action by special resolution had led to cases where CTTT has acknowledged that this type of democracy can disproportionately disadvantage some people. Generally it works but it has the potential to be misused and that potential has been realised in several CTTT matters.The usual reason people don't have the numbers is because the majority of people don't agree with them. Requiring a unanimous vote on financial decision is a frankly ridiculous idea. And of course some people are “disadvantaged” by a majority vote – even one that requires 75 percent of support. That's life. What about the 90+ percent of people who would be disadvantaged because one antisocial curmugeon refused to go along with a proposal that made sense to everyone else in their building?
As Winston Churchill once observed: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government … except all the others that have been tried.”
As for strata being the fourth level of government … of course it is. But this is nothing new … village councils and street committees have been around for hundreds of years. The truly retrograde aspect of strata democracy is that it is based on ownership rather than residency and right there is the root of most of its problems.
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 disagree with Clive that Fred deserves to be paid for his work but, especially when it comes to financial matters, it's better to be squeaky clean, legally. Here is what the Strata Act says:
25 Can members of the executive committee be paid?
An owners corporation may pay to a person who is the chairperson, secretary, treasurer or a member of the executive committee such amount as the owners corporation determines at an annual general meeting in recognition of services performed by the person for the owners corporation in the period since the last annual general meeting.
Couldn't be clearer than that.
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.
Billen Ben said:
I would not argue the OC has a “perfect right” to protect the common property but what Jimmy suggests is a part of what is wrong in strata.
If a person breaks a by-law then be as big a pain as possible to that person and see if you can't hit them where it may or may not hurt, in the hip pocket — that is what i am reading. That is sad.
Sad, maybe, but a fact of life. If somebody moving out is inconsiderate or careless enough to damage common property, what are your chances of getting the money back off them after they'd disappeared into the sunset? Or should we just accept that some people don't give a damn about their neighbours and pay the bills to repair the damage they cause?
If your building has an issue with the EC unfairly refusing to return bonds, then maybe you could deal with that using the methods you have suggested to everyone else for dealing with damage done by departed residents. Hmmm. Not so easy, is it?
I didn't, by the way, suggest that paying to have the strata manager oversee the removal was a good idea. In fact, I said the opposite. But having the manager check the common areas before and after the move then promptly refund the bond if there is no damage (or otherwise) seems like common sense to me. Let the removalists claim it off their insurance then, if damage has been 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.
Either your mother or you (as tenant) can apply to Fair Trading for mediation (an obligatory precursor to action at the CTTT). Then you ask for them to be issued with a Notice to Comply with the by-law (that I assume you have) preventing them from parking on common property. If they breach the NTC they can be fined.
You might want to think about calling council about the change of use of the backyard into a parking area (or marina, by the sound of it).
But before all that, if you think it's worth it, you can have a quiet chat with them about what your options are and explain how their behaviour will eventually lead to no one being able to park on common property ever. It's entirely up to them. What they do will determine what happens next becasue all you are asking is that your rights as a resident be acknowledged and respected.
Or, if you think they will be abusive, you could get a lawyer to send them a letter giving them one more chance to behave (and that means allowing you clear and free access to your garage .. no excuses and no gradual return to the situation as it is now).
But the truth of the matter is that you could go right ahead immediately and sort them out once and for all – but be prepared for some sort of backlash as these people sound like a bunch of selfish yahoos.
Fair Trading are on 13 32 20, mediation is explained HERE and the form applying for mediation is HERE. Oh, and your strata manager needs to at least explain why they have done nothing.
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.
Had a chat with someone from Fair Trading about this and basically the Owners Corporation exists right now, even before the first AGM, but the developer is obviously the majority voter (for want of a better term).
Have a look at the proposed by-laws (which should have been registered with the Strata Plan) and see if there's anything you might fall foul of. You may want to sit down with the developer (and any other owners who want to participate) and agree on a way forward.
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 Memorandum refers to: “smoke detectors connected to the fire board in the building” as being common property while “smoke detectors within a lot and are stand alone (not connected to the fire board in the building)” are individual owners responsibility. As I said elsewhere, the Memo is not law (although it may cover elements that are) but it's a good guide until such times as your OC adopts it as 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.
What would happen is that, for instance, the building manager would refuse to 'lock off' a lift for the exclusive use of the removalists, extending their time to the owners great expense. There could also be issues with access to the building with similarly expensive results.
OCs have a perfect right to protect common property against the scuffs and scrapes of careless removalists. A bond will make everyone just a bit more careful, in which case it can be returned intact.
BTW, I have just learned that my building used to charge $100 attendance fee for the building manager to supervise removals – but then someone (not me) wrote to the papers and it was quietly shelved.
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 theory (which I believe is yet to be tested) that if you pass a by-law saying that owners accept that they will be fined for illegal parking, then the can be fined. The same theory applies to 'management fees' for issuing Notices To Comply.
Given that you need 75 percent of those voting at a general meeting to pass by-laws, this is not something that can be imposed on the whim of a few individuals. Whether or not it's legal or not is another issue but from what I hear, it works as a deterrent so where's the harm?
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.
According to the new Memorandum on who is responsible for what, they will come under common property. Have a look HERE for more information.
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 door closer is an Owners Corporation responsibility. Contact your building manager or strata manager. Also, have a look 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.
My building had a manager like this a few years ago. Being nasty to tenants was his way of ingratiating himself with owners – at least he thought so. He ended being run out of the building.
I've been getting criticised recently for being hard on landlords so can I say the chances are your landlord is as wary of this nutter as you are – but he has to step up and make sure things are done properly. Maybe all he needs is a little encouragement.
Contact Fair Trading’s tenancy division on 13 32 20 and say you need them to tell your landlord to take action against the building manager. Otherwise, you'll want compensation for the time the car space isn’t available.
It's a roundabout way of getting things done but, as I discovered recently, for $36 you can get Fair Trading and the CTTT to force your landlord to do what any decent landlord would and should do anyway.
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'd be tempted to launch a “reality check” campaign for all owners. Issue a circular telling everyone that the EC is clamping down on all illegal parking and then spelling out exactly what can be done to rogue parkers in terms of notices to comply and subsequent fines at the CTTT.
Don't get all legalistic – simple messages such as “There are no three warnings in strata. The Notice To Comply is what it says it is … failure to obey it will lead to heavy fines at the CTTT.”
I would also push through a by-law that allowed the OC to impose a management service charge of, say, $200 for each time a Notice To Comply was issued following a vote at the EC.
If owners want to fight the management fee, they can do so at the CTTT.
And I would suggest that rogue parkers be “named and shamed” in EC minutes every time they park illegally.
And I would remind owners that nothing puts prospective buyers off quicker than car park chaos. Who wants to bay a parking space they may never get to use and where there aren't any visitor spaces because Revhead upstairs has forur cars and one space.
Nothing motivates strata dwellers more effectively that a tweak of the hip pocket nerve. Fines, management fees and the threat to the value of their homes should get their attention.
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'd be having a word with the plumber who did the original work upgrading all the taps. I don't know how long the warranty is on such work but having to renew washers every year sounds like somebody's been recycling half-worn washers.
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.
Our OC asks for a deposit, albeit a lesser amount, in case of damage to lifts and walls during removals. But I've never heard of owners or renters being charged for the attendance of the building manager to inspect removals. Given that everybody in the building has to move in or out at some point, I can't see how this would be above and beyond your building manager's duties.
As a tenant, you have no role in the Owners Corporation (unless you are given a proxy vote by an owner). So I would write to your landlord and tell him you think this is onerous and unfair. All it takes is a 25 percent vote to stop the by-law in its tracks – but if nobody does anything, it will just slip through.
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.