Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Firstly, a loan can't be agreed by the EC – only by the Owners Corporation at a general meeting. Because there may be some people better able to pay than others, it's only fair that a majority of all owners decide on whether to impose a special levy or arrange for a loan through a specialist strata loan company. Strata loan interest rates are higher because the loans are “unsecured” – you can't offer any property as a surety. However, strata lenders will argue that the cost to borrowers is no greater, at the end of the day, than a bank loan or, indeed, spending your savings (and losing accrued interest).
And to answer your other questions, the loan is raised by the Owners Corporation and is serviced via an additional amount added to the levies, based on unit entitlements. The two leading companies in this field are Lannocks and Strata Finance although there may be others.
The difference, at the end of the day is philosophical as well as financial. Do you want the people who will benefit from the work (present and future owners) to pay for it or do you think current owners should pay for not having enough in the sinking fund to cover the cost of remedial work?
Many owners prefer to pay up front for the simple reason that a loan adds to future levies and may put future purchasers off (or they may be happy to see that necessary work had been done). Other owners simply don't have the money and might face having to sell up if they are forced to pay a special levy (although there's a body of opinion that that's what you get for 'saving' money by not keeping your sinking fund up to scratch).
You could go for an each-way bet. Get the special levy in to get work going and then look at a loan for the balance of the work if it's going to mean another hefty hit. But you are right to ask about this – the most important thing is that everyone gets to make an informed choice.
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.
ANSWER: Before anyone either panics or dismisses this issue out of hand, while there's little definitive evidence that wireless networks cause health problems, they are a very, very new phenomenon and we don't know for sure that they don't.
This web page (https://www.electrosensitivesoc…..-hamilton/) offers some anecdotal evidence that there can be problems for certain people; not everyone, by any means (but then, not everyone who smokes gets cancer and not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic)
In 2007 the German government's anti-pollution watchdog said people should avoid using Wi-Fi in the home because of the risks “electrosmog” may pose to
health.
One thing is for sure, if Wi-Fi does cause health problems, apartment blocks are where they will be found. In my block of just over 130 units, I can pick up about 12 other networks, one of which is stronger in one of my rooms than my own network (which is, of course, also contributing to the electrosmog).
And then there are the blocks with mobile phone masts and relays on the roof. The Internet (ironically) is awash with stories of mobile phone antennas being removed from apartment building roofs because of elevated cancer rates among residents.
But, even though you can prove you have a health issue related to wireless networks in your building, don't expect your neighbours to rush to ban Wi-Fi; this will be seen very much as your problem, not theirs.
So be glad that you are a tenant and consider moving into a smaller, older building with thicker walls and floors where it's less likely to be an issue. The rest of us, meanwhile, will stew in our own electro-juice. You just have to look at our choked roads to see that convenience beats common sense every time.
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 no question of unlimited liability for this matter and I'm afraid that's a spurious argument. The simple answer is that the Owners Corporation should be insured for most eventualities and the owners' personal home and contents insurance would kick in where the OC's insurance stopped.
I can think of no other area of modern life where we are expected to pay for someone else's mistakes or accidents. You run you car into mine “by accident” your insurer pays, not mine. If you're not insured, my insurance will pay but I will still be chasing you for the excess. And by the way, I think you'll find strata law says quite clearly that there is no limit to Owners' Corporations' liability in anything to do with their strata plan – that's why strata insurance exists.
To get back to this question, basically you are saying that if strata owned pipes burst and take down my freshly painted ceiling, the OC will pay for the ceiling to be replaced but I have to pay for it to be repainted, and for my carpet and furniture to be replaced, even if that blows my no-claims discount or increases my insurance premiums. Where in the Strata Act does it says individual owners have to pay for the mistakes, negligence or accidents of the Owners Corporation.
Even if I had insurance I wouldn't expect it to cover other people's accidents – just mine. If the guy next door floods me out, he pays (or his insurance does). The OC is no different.
I am happy to be corrected on this if someone can quote me one item of strata law that clearly contradicts me. But my advice is that this has been just a matter of (bad) practice in some blocks where ECs have bullied owners into thinking they have to pay for repairs when the liability is clearly theirs.
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 was probably wrong to call it a “trick” but I have checked this with strata lawyers in the past and the consensus I have received over the years is that if the damage is caused by common property then any damage done repairing it is down to the Owners Corporation, whether the individual owner has insurance or not. I admit thare are plenty of strata managers around who disagree but the Owners Corporation has a legal duty to maintain and repair common property and if someone (anyone) damages your property for whatever reason, they are liable for the repair.
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 the oldest trick in the book. Yes, you are responsible for the paint in your home but, more to the point, the Owners Corporation is responsible for the damage to your property caused in the repair of common property. Send them a bill.
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 EC should be the people to stick notices under windscreen wipers and issue Notices To Comply but if they won’t do the former, then there’s no reason you can’t (apart from the potential for personal confrontation). And if they won’t issue NtCs then you can go to Fair Trading and ask them to issue one on your behalf.
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 seems eminently sensible and well-researched. However, I’m still drawn to the basic by-law that says you can’t disturb the peaceful enjoyment of another’s lot.
I met someone the other day whose building has a by-law that simply says flooring noise insulation may not be any less effective than carpet with top quality underlay. As a result, they don’t have any timber floors in their units.
I don’t see that this is necessarily a bad thing – we simply have no legal or moral right to inflict noise on our neighbours just so we can have a magazine supplement lifestyle. If that’s what people want, pay the money for proper insulation or go and live in a house – don’t expect others to satisfy your fashion needs by putting up with your noise.
I also feel sorry for owners who are misled by flooring salesmen and the OFT’s lack of clear direction on this into thinking they can just chuck a floor down and their neighbours can’t do anything about it. That’s a big expense in the cost of the floor, plus the legal costs in having it removed and the social cost of having neighbours at each other’s throats.
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.
It strikes me that the easiest way to formalise this would be to pass a by-law allowing roof sspace to be used for these purposes (and nly those purposes) provided the relevant owners signed an agreement that they are responsible for relevant maintenace and repairs related to the installations. That way you won't get, say, a new owner coming in and saying that air-con is on common property therefore the Owners Corp has to fix it when it breaks down. Anybody else with any thoughts?
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.
If the by-law – or more correctly special resolution – is just for your
unit, then it's reasonable to ask you to pay the costs. If the by-law
is a universal rule that will apply to all work done in the future by
any owners – and you just happen to be the first beneficiary – then the
Owners Coorp should pay for it.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.