Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It all depends who owns them. If, like kitchen taps, the pipes come through and are attached to common property, but are otherwise for your personal use, the taps are your responsibility. If, however, they are decreed to be Common Property in the strata plan documentation, then they are the OC's responsibility.
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 know about organised lobbying but there is certainly an awareness of the 'clustering' of proxy votes you described. I was part of a group organised by Clover Moore MP that tried to evolve some policies that she could take to amend strata law in NSW but the strata law here is so deeply flawed that the issue of proxies couldn't be given any more than a cursory nod within the time we had available.
I hadn't heard about the limit in Queensland and I can't find any references to it so it may just be wishful thinking. It would certainly be out of character for that state which still favours developers to a ridiculous extent – it's in the law there, for instance, that the developer can demand a proxy in off-the-plan sales to award a contract for building management (which they then sell and the owners have to finance). Having been instrumental in a successful campaign to make that illegal here, I am no great admirer of strata law north of the border.
The problem with limiting the number of proxies one person holds is that you run the risk of disenfranchising people who can't find a potential proxy holder who hasn't exceeded their limit. But by not limiting it, you allow clustering through either active campaigning such as you describe or 'passive' blind votes passed on to a chair by virtue of the fact that they haven't screwed up recently.
Personally, I would favour a voting form that goes out with the agenda and asks the non-attendees to tick a box on all the agenda items. Sure, there will still be abuses but at least you don't have the situation where one person gets free reign over everything. And it will be hard for counter-arguments to get an airing but it's better than buildings being run solely to benefit one resident and his or her investor mates.
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.
More to the point, the OC is obliged NOT to provide improvements or services that only benefit only one owner unless there is another reason that benefits the whole building.
The key question is, does this fence enhance the amenity, safety and physical integrity of common property.
If not, the most an OC should do is allow the owners of that lot to build the fence with the proviso that they (the unit owner) undertakes to maintain the fence in perpetuity.
This will require a special resolution which will need the support of 75 percent of owners voting at a general meeting.
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 checked with Blue about whether this was noise from the pipes or the sound of water and this was her reply:
It's actually both. Once they turn the water on, the pipes start humming (or whistling is another way of describing it) and then afterwards the water
noise gurgling down drains also starts. The noise carries on for 30-40mins
which by this time wakes me up and keeps me awake. I have also tried to go outside (while the neighbours are in the bathroom) and the noise is loud even if you are standing in the stairwell.
It strikes me that there are two issues here – one is some kind of pipe noise caused by water pressure, the other is lack of sound insulation between the bathroom and Blue's bedroom, including insulation round the pipes.
This is more than likely a common property 'defect' and Blue's landlord needs to get the Owners Corporation to attend to it as a matter of urgency. Meantime, the landlord should be offering a rent reduction until the problem is fixed. This should not be seen as an aggressive action against the landlord – it's also giving them ammunition to take to the OC to demand action.
The neighbour is entitled to shower whenever they want (as long as they don't sing after 10 pm). The fault is in the building or the conversion and the remedy lies with the OC. Even if the problem was caused by an 'off-the-books' renovation, it's still up to the OC to make sure it's fixed and only the landlord can force the OC to do anything like this.
Blue should call the Tenants Advice Line 8117 3750 or freecall 1800 251 101, Mondays 3:00–6:00pm or go to https://www.tenants.org.au 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.
Happy to see some positive recommendations but please don't start naming companies you hate who will then sue me (and not you) for defamation.
Obviously, I'm biased in favour of Strata Choice And StrataRes/StratamanageIT, if only because they show impeccable taste and intelligence by sponsoring this website.
I also have a lot of time for Strata Associates or you may wish to have a small local operator (but make sure they have impeccable references from local buildings).
One thing I would advise is that when you meet any prospective strata managers you ask to meet the manager who will actually be looking after your property. And bear in mind that once you have sold the apartments it's no longer your decision about who gets the contract in the future.
It may also help with the sales of the apartments if you have a strata manager who presents well to prospective buyers, rather than Sneaky Sam's Stratafarians who will do you a good deal in the hope of getting an opportunity to shaft your prospective purschasers.
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.
JimmyT here, Tonto
I think the point is that there has to be a legally binding resolution about who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the cable when it passes through common property. Normally pipes and wires that pass through CP would be OC responsibility but they may expect the owner to agree that if there's a problem in the future it's the individual problem and not theirs. Either way, it needs a special resolution so that everything is clear should there be a problem in the future.
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 first thing that occurs is that the new committee can't change the levy – that can only be decided at a general meeting of the owners. Your strata managers should be on to that already (if they are any good).
Secondly, the Owners Corporation (that's all of you) has a legal responsibility to maintain common property. If they are not doing so and, in this case, it compromises the expected level of security for the building, they could face legal action at the CTTT.
And there is another element that might apply here (and I stress 'might'). If they have been warned that security has been dimished by their decision, and someone is huirt, robbed or has their property damaged by intruders, they MIGHT be guilty of culpable negligence which may not be covered by their insurance, leading to personal liability for EC members who voted against it. That may be a long shot but it's worth thinking about, just to get their attention.
Speaking generally, there are too many cases around of people buying bargain priced apartments (because of circumstances like yours) and rather than accepting the benefit already accrued, they try to reduce the building to a lower level of servic. It's not right and should be resisted.
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 far as I can tell that is one ot the Schedule 1 “model” by-laws. It doesn't apply to all buildings and may not apply to yours. Owners Corporations are at liberty to remove or alter that bylaw if they so desire to suit the realities of their circumstances. It's really an internal issue in each individual 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.
No apologies requires, Skeekymoo. It's hard to know where the line is so it's even harder to know if it's been crossed.
For the legal status of correspondence, I refer to our friend Murray Cameron of StratamanageIT who told me that in devising his online strata management system he received advice that there is no such thing as “private” correspondence within an Owners Corporation – ie, anything sent to or by a member of the OC and related to the OC can be viewed by any member of the OC. I'm sure Murray or one of our legal members will put me right on that if I got that wrong. However, enforcing that may not be as easy as it should be and may require action at Fair Trading and the CTTT if the EC or your strata manager are reluctant to let you see them.
On the question of the legality of warning letters, I don't think there is any legal requirement for warning letters to be sent before a Notice To Comply is issued since it is, in effect, a warning letter itself. And Notices To Comply have fairly strict rules surrounding them. Again, someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but warning letters then have no legal status but they could be used as evidence of an ongoing dispute if the matter went to an adjudication at the CTTT. Many buildings use warning letters as a way of drawing a complaint to a resident's attention in the hope of resolving the issue without having to resort to a Notice To Comply. Naturally, human nature being what it is, some EC members will also use them to harrass people they don't like.
If there is a problem or disagreement and it's not being properly handled, mediation can offer a way out for all concerned before everybody starts getting all Perry Mason on each other.
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.
With landlord’s insurance you are paying for peace of mind and maybe you already have that with your current tenant – although the unexpected can always happen through no fault of either party.
It won't seem worth it if you pay for years and nothing goes wrong. It will seem like terrific value if your tenants wreck the place and get you into expensive legal strife with your neighbours.
Today’s Sun-Herald has an article by Bina Brown about a property investor whose tenant defaulted on his rent, trashed her apartment and by the time she fixed the place she’d missed the opportunity to sell, as planned, before the market dropped.
Another article by Susannah Petty in June last year stated that most claims are for loss of rent but cited a few cases where people were getting cover for things they were already insured for or no cover when they thought they had it.
And then there’s Murphy’s Law – as soon as you cancel your cover, disaster will strike.
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.
Paint is not part of common property and neither would you want it to be. If it was, the OC could come around and tell you what colour to paint your walls and who should do the painting. The outside of doors and external walls that look on to common and public areas are differnet but apart from areas that may form part of the waterproof seal (in bathrooms, for instance) the paint is all yours.
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.
Skeekymoo
I think we're getting perilously close to you asking Simone for free legal advice on your specific case (rather than something of general interest to all Forum readers). Simone is free to give you as much help as she wants – that's her call – but I think the time may have come to “drop a dime” as they say in the movies and talk to her directly.
Regards
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.
My understanding is that the OC is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of collecting outstanding arrears but I have a sneaking suspicion this was challenged in court in the past year or so – not sure what the final outcome of that was but I think reasonable costs can be added to the original debt. Anyone have any other thoughts?
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.
Any building can decide to dispense with strata managers and, in fact, 50 percent of strata developments in NSW don't have them. But that doesn't mean you are then only responsible for your own unit. The Strata Act makes all owners members of the Owners Corporation whether they want it or not and with that comes certain responsibilities for the upkeep of common property that you just can't shirk. Strata living is a very cost-effective way of owning and investing in property. If you don't like having to share responsibilities then you should be investing in free-standing homes. The strata management industry is gradually getting rid of all the cowboys and chancers – the best thing you can do is to employ GOOD strata managers and sack the incompetent ones.
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.
Fair Trading din't need to send yyou to the Department of Lands – they should have been able to answer this themselves (with the emphasis on should have). Without knowing the details, it seems to me that ther information is correct and it's all a common property issue. In very simple terms, you should be able to claim back your share of the money that you wrongly paid to the Owners Corp. However, something else worth thinking about is that if this affects every unit or townhouse, there is no free ride on this for anyone. What you gain on repairs you will all lose from your sinking fund. I would get agreement to refund or offset the money you have already paid before you proceed any furhter with 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.