Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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.
You can both stand for election to the EC but only if you are nominated by other owners. There are various quirks in this part of strata law – this is what it says:
Schedule 3: Part 2 Constitution of executive committees for strata schemes with more than 2 lots
(5) A person who is co-owner of a lot may not be a candidate for election as a member of the executive committee unless the person is nominated for office:
(a) by an owner who is not a co-owner of the lot, or
(b) by a co-owner of the lot who is not a candidate for election as a member.
(6) An owner of a lot who is not a co-owner of the lot may nominate himself or herself for election as a member of the executive committee.
My interpretation of that is that if you both want to be on the EC you both have to be nominated by other owners. The reason for that is 5 (b) that states you can't be nominated as a candidate by your co-owner if that person is standing for election themselves.
So find two other owners who want you to both to be on the EC and you'll be fine. But you definitely can't nominate each other for two vacancies.
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.
Did I just read that correctly? Your building manager charges for the use of visitor spaces? I would want to have a look at that right away – I'm not even sure if that's allowed.
That aside, I wonder if a simple double gate “air-lock” solution might solve many of your problems, preferably with a boom before the gate so that the boom has to be down behind the entering vehicle before the gate opens. I know at least one building in Sydney that uses a system like that.
If space doesn't allow, I'm sure there are other technical solutions that would be a lot less than 100K.
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.
Meebee said:
In the meantime, the member of the strata who called the tree lopper on the instruction of the strata agent has been issued with an infringement notice from the council. I do not see that it is this person who should have the infringement recorded against them as they were merely acting as a conduit on instructions from the managing agent (which is in turn instructed by the owners corporation?).
From your replies, it seems that it is not the responsibility of the tree lopper. Is it also not the the responsibility of the managing agent? If not, it seems that the owners corporation should be the one recorded on the infringement notice?
The problem is that technically the Strata Manager can only follow the instructions of the Owners Corporation and the Executive Committee. So at worst all the SM did was to offer bad advice. The strata manager does not instruct the EC … they can only advise or carry out instructions given to them (unless decision-making powers have been devolved to them formally, and even then, they are acting as the EC and OC's agents).
I'm guessing Council won't care who's ultimately responsible – they just want a name they can put on an infringement notice.
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 case that applies most closely to your issue is the Seiwa case, judgement for which you will find here:
The Seiwa ruling argues, among many other things, that the Owners Corporation has an absolute duty to maintain and repair common property and that not knowing there was a problem, which may have got worse because it wasn't reported, makes no difference.
In relation to your issue, the argument here is that if Common Property is damaged by a current owner, then the OC should take action against that owner. But if that owner has sold up and moved on, the OC's obligation is still the same to maintain and repair common property.
Theoretically, they can try to get compensation for any work they might have to do from the person who cause the damage (the original owner). But that would be expensive and time consuming and basically not worth the trouble.
In the absence of a special resolution assigning responsibility for the work done and associated installations to the owner and all subsequent owners, the responsibility remains with the OC.
I suspect you aren't going to find any specific case law to back that up because the principles are already covered in Seiwa so most OCs would be advised to accept the situation and get on with it.
I will be happy to publish any professional opinion that either supports or contradicts this point of view – I am not a lawyer but I believe this to be the case.
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.
OK, fruit bats aside, there are clearly other issues of common property here and there should be a plan in place about what happens after the tree is removed. This is clearly no longer a council issue but it is still an Owners Corporation matter. Before anything else happens your friend should be trying to establish what's going to replace the tree. If the answer is nothing, then time to get active as per previous postings.
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 recent correspondence HERE.
There are some restrictions in the strata Act but really, your by-laws are the most likely place to find detailed restriction on what can and can't be done in your building. And remember, this is YOUR by-laws, not the standard model by-laws or any others for any other building.
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 agree with DaveB but bear in mind that anything the strata manager does above and beyond their normal duties can (and should) be charged for.
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 friend needs to formally alert the other members of the EC that the secretary is about to do something illegal and without the consent of the council or the Owners Corporation.
She also needs to talk to Fair Trading (tel 313 32 20) about setting up a mediation – the first step in a dispute procedure. And I would get her solicitor to write to the secretary saying that she is overstepping her authority and that if damages for loss of amenity are sought, they will be against her personally (or whatever the approriate legal threat is).
If it were me, I'd get a strata lawyer to do this as they will know exactly what can and can't be done. She also needs to get people to watch the tree with her and the first sign of a tree feller, she should call the council and they will stop it.
Then, when this is all calmed down, the Owners Corp should get an independent assessment of what can be done to fix the problems that the tree is causing.
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.
Macfadyen's advice would be spot on if you were an owner. Unfortunately, as a renter, while you can approach the EC and ask them to do something, if they refuse, you really need to go to your landlord and ask them to put pressure on the EC to get the lifts properly maintained.
The Owners Corporation has an absolute legal duty to repair and maintain common property so your landlord has every right to demand that this be fixed.
If they are reluctant to take action, go to Fair Trading and ask them to order a rent reduction for loss of amenity until such times as the problem is fixed.
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 spelled out in the Act but it has been a recent Supreme Court interpretation of the Owners Corporation's legal responsibility to maintain common property regardless of how, why or by whom it has been altered or damaged.
I'll try to find the case if I can but I'm assured that this is the case.
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.
This is what it says in the Act:
116 Owners, occupiers and other persons not to interfere with structure of lot or services to lot
(1) An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession (whether in person or not), lessee or occupier of a lot must not do anything or permit anything to be done on or in relation to that lot so that:
(a) any support or shelter provided by that lot for another lot or common property is interfered with, or
(b) the passage or provision of water, sewage, drainage, gas, electricity, garbage, artificially heated or cooled air, heating oil and other services (including telephone, radio and television services) through or by means of any pipes, wires, cables or ducts for the time being in the lot is interfered with.
(2) The owner of a lot must not alter the structure of the lot without giving to the owners corporation, not later than 14 days before commencement of the alteration, a written notice describing the proposed alteration.
What can you do about it? You could apply to the CTTT for an interim order to stop work until the situation is resolved. The relevant CTTT fact sheet is HERE. The forms you require are for an interim order and, although an interim order doesn't require mediation, the interim order request must be accompanied by an application for adjudication and for mediation.
This will cost you money and is far from a guaranteed success. So you have to ask yourself what your is desired outcome.
If it's to prevent the work happening at all, then taking this through the CTTT, at this stage, is probably the best approach.
But if you simply want to make sure that no other owner is disadvantaged by this work, then you need guarantees from the renovator that they will remedy any problem that presents iself immediately and without question.
The point of that is to make them make abolutely sure there will be no impact on the rest of the building. It will be very much in the best interests of the renovators to go way beyond the requirements of Australian Building Standards to ensure there is no noise impact on other apartments.
And it's at this point that I can only suggest your EC seeks advice from a specialist strata lawyer as soon as possible. The unanimity in the building against his proposal is a powerful weapon but only a strata lawyer can tell you how to use it most effectively. Your legal advice may well contradict theirs (especially if their lawyer is not a strata expert). It will cost money but it will save everyone a lot of grief in the long term.
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.