Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just remember that all these contracts have to be approved at the first AGM of the Owners Corporation – that's you and other owners – so now is the time to see if there's been any feather-bedding, before they are all rubber stamped.
For instance, in the past some lift installers have sold lifts into buildings at a cut price to developers in exchange for inflated long-term maintenance contracts which get blithely approved at the initial AGM (because nobody wants to get stuck in a lift).
Ask for a copy of all proposed contracts, get together with a few other owners if need be to share the costs, and get a strata lawyer to go through them before the AGM. Anything that doesn't add up, reject.
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.
Firstly, at $5,200 p.a. your levies fall at the lower end of my 0.7 to 1.3 percent range – which is good, for what it’s worth.
I say that because you and the other owners will soon be collectively setting the levies to finance what it actually costs to run the building, plus anything you need to put away for a rainy day (aka, the sinking fund). Those costs include electricity for common areas, insurance, lifts, maintenance and any bells or whistles you might have like swimming pools and security or concierges. But for a small complex like yours these may not even be an issue.
To answer your question about strata levies are calculated on Unit Entitlements which is a figure that represents your share of the common property. Unit entitlements are based on complicated (to the point of mystical) estimates of value which take into account position in the building, height above ground, aspect, size and other stuff. But for all practical purposes they are (or should be) related to the value of the apartments.
So, if the developer is charging a lot more for a similar sized apartment but says the levies are the same, then there is something seriously out of kilter. There have been cases where developers have set the UIs of their penthouse aprtments lower than those of single bedroom units on the lower floors, so as to attract big spenders who want a luxury pad but don’t want to pay high levies. But these cases almost always end up at the CTTT where they not only have to put things right but can be ordered to refund the overcharged owners.
Unless the discrepancy is huge, I’d let it slide. The cost of fixing it – which means getting surveyors and lawyers involved – may well be more than it's worth.
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 fact that that the strata managers are are charging a fee for this means that their contract allows them to charge for work over and above their ordinary duties (which will not include an unlimited number of meetings). There is nothing unusual or unfair in this charge, per se. The fact that you have been told about this is either simple transparency or a not very subtle form of bullying by members of your body corporate committee.
But, hey, if they were so keen to avoid these payments they should have done something about the lights, so don't worry about it. Make it clear at the meeting that if you don't get some satisfaction over the lights that you may well pursue this all the way to Consumer Affairs, which will cost them a few more bills from your strata managers (two can play that game!).
This is a problem that's caused by a common property light installation and it's up to them to fix it. The light may be needed for safety or security reasons but residents have the right to sleep peacefully in their own homes.
However, explain to your committee members that you are prepared to listen to any compromise solution that allows you to sleep at night – inexpensive motion activated sensors on the lights, for instance, or black-out blinds for your windows – either of which would be a lot cheaper for everyone, both financially and in terms of time and emotional energy, than fighting this through the CAV system.
Realistically, there may be a point where it makes more sense for you just to give up the fight and put black-out blinds over the windows. Keep this to yourself, but being involved in a long and bitter dispute with your neighbours can be debilitating and distressing, especially in a small block, and if you don't have the stomach for it, can destroy your sense of “home” quicker than having a bikie gang move in next door.
Only you will know where that 'surrender' point is, but until you reach it stand firm. The Consumer Affairs Victoria website is HERE and their guide to strata living can be downloaded 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.
The one I'm thinking of is the Encore building at 21 Elizabeth Bay Rd, Elizabeth Bay, NSW 2011. Write to the chairman of the Executive Committee at that address and I'm sure he'll tell you how it works.
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.
Hi Jacqui.
It would help with the answer to know who it is you are dealing with. There is no such thing as a Body Corp in NSW. Is it the Executive Committee? Is it the Building Manager? Or is it the strata manage?. I'm guessing it's probably not the Owner's Corporation, unless you have had a general meeting recently.
I'm not being picky or smartarse about this – all of these people may be involved in your issue and they all require different approaches. So give a clue about who has said what and then we can offer some advice?
JimmyT
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 any of this advice. However, make sure that the “peaceful enjoyment’ by-law is on the books for your building. It is one of the standard by-laws but not necessarily adopted by all strata schemes.
There is another thing, which is that people given to outbursts of aggression often aren’t the easiest people to deal with (although the way people behave with their families can be completely at odds with how they deal with the outside world).
Perhaps having a chat with other neighbours to find out if they also have a problem with this might strengthen your case before you knock on the door.
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 have raised this with Fair Trading and got this initial response form my “insider' there:
This stems from the lot air space concept. You buy an “air space” with it's 6 boundaries – walls, bottom and top- and everything outside that is CP. So, re downlights, the technical answer depends on where the airspace ends. If the downlights have glass base, the airspace ends at their under surface, if they have no glass base adn are open to the bulb, then the lot runs up and around the bulb.
However, an OC can decide at meeting not to change bulbs, or, while tedious, they could pass special by-law making all owners responsbile for all ceiling lights within their unit Don't ask me about air conditioning. the open vents have air space runnning up into the ceiling space.
It's one of these issues where strict interpretation of the law bumps up against practical realities and more inquiries are being made.
However, any OC that is seriously concerned that they are going to spend all their time and half their sinking fund replacing blown bulbs in recessed downlights probably needs to get a by-law in place pronto.
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 time I thinkl I've read just about every weird story, something like this comes out of the blue.
The first thing I have to say is that your landlord broke the law by terminating your lease because you were trying to assert your legal rights.
The mad cow isn't a strata matter or even a rental issue … it's a small claims court matter and you should talk to a lawyer about that.
But doesn't you car insurance cover this 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.
Assuming this is strata (rather than Company Title) I'm going to out on a limb here and say that the legal costs of proving that your auntie was negligent and personally liable (even if you could do so) could be more than you would pay in a special levy with no guarantee of a positive outcome.
Look on the positive side, your apartment is going to be the one that benefits most from this upgrade and it's only going to cost you one-fifth (possibly less). Meanwhile, it's time to get Auntie to step down and if she puts up a fight, apply to the CTTT for the appointment of a statutory strata manager who will get the building maintained as it is the Owners' Coprporation's legal duty to do.
The question of personal liability, I will leave to our legal friends who may know of a way of proving that this is personal rather than corporate negligence.
If finance is an issue, there are strata finance companies around that provide funds exactly for situations like 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.
If only it was as simple as that. Responsibility for repairs should have been a condition of permission to lay the tiles. Failure to get that agreement pushes the responsibility back on the OC as they gave permission. Getting the owner to pay half and then tidying up that question seems to be a reasonable compromise.
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.
Hi Jeff
This is not only normal but a sign that your EC is working properly to look after the building. There is no new building in Sydmney that doesn't have defects so be happy they are doing something about it.
By the way, I don't normally do this but Teys Lawyers have been piloting a new scheme that a) gets defects fixed and b) gets it done with the minimum of stress heartache and conflict.
Once you get setled in, suggest the EC talks to them.
Jimmy
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 could and should have expressed that better. People on the ground floor should have lower levies because they should have lower unit entitlements. They should have lower UIs because their apartments are lower value (not because they use the lift less – although they obviously would).
That's the basis on which you would expect to be paying less in a special levy – that your apartment was less valuable. And if all the apartments have the same UI, that that can be challenged and adjusted if need be. But Mr S is right, it has nothing to do with the usage of the lifts or any other facility.
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 is one of the conditions applied to an exclusive use by-law. It protects the owner concerned from spending time and money of developing an area of common property and then having the permission to use it revoked.
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.
Firstly, the position of the unit in a building is often a factor in establishing unit entitlements (the basis on which levies are calculated). The higher you are in the building, chances are, the greater your levies.
There is no legal basis that I know of for charging everyone exactly the same amount (although this may be different in QLD).
I know of buildings with no lifts that contribute to adjoining parts of the same strata that do have lifts (townhouses next to high rises, for instance).
But the remedy for this is to have the unit entitlements adjusted so that the non-lift users pay less and this can be done by application to the CTTT or its state equivalent
Finally, if this work isn’t covered by warranty then it means the sinking fund has been neglected. It’s swings and roundabouts – if you don’t put the money away, it will eventually come back to bite you on the bum.
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.