Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
A few problems there. At first instance, a single member NCAT matter at its first hearing (i.e. not an appeal), it is highly (95+%) unlikely you would get costs although it occasionally happens. Also I am not a fan of the standard “intimidate the other party financially” with assertions about costs. Lawyers; what can be said about them.
Perception is reality in all forms of politics. In this case, it seems like the strata committee member is trying to scare the plaintiff, so threats of potential costs are already on the table.
More significant is telling owners that if the SC loses, all owners except the plaintiff will have to cover the costs through a special levy raised to cover them. That has nothing to do with costs being awarded – which you correctly say rarely occurs – and everything to do with plaintiffs who prevail in and NCAT case not having to contribute to the expenses of the defence.
The words “special levy” should be enough to make somnolent owners prick up their ears and ask what their funds are being used for. A general meeting to discuss this could stop the action in its tracks.
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.
Yeah … but no. Call the cops and say there’s a car trespassing on common property and they will tell you it’s not their problem – it’s neither private property (although it is) nor public property (which it isn’t) and the issue lives permanently in their too-hard basket. On the other hand, attempt to effect a citizen’s arrest and a world of potential legal pain awaits.
Parking was far and away the issue that troubled Flatchatters most in a recent poll. Even the “brilliant” idea of asking your local council to police strata car parks hit the buffers when councils realised they wouldn’t raise enough revenue to cover the cost of additional patrols and their safety rules wouldn’t allow parking officers to patrol enclosed spaces.
Enforcing by-laws only works if the miscreant is an owner or tenant or you can legitimately shift the blame to them. E.g., your visitor or employee is misusing the short-stay car park and you are liable for their behaviour.
Interestingly, in South Australia the strata committee can issue fines of up to a maximum of $500 directly to the breachers. Those fines have to be commensurate with the offence, so for parking you would do well to set it as the equivalent to a parking fine on a nearby street.
One of the most effective deterrents I have head of for rogue parkers who don’t live in the building has been to carefully place the warning notice on the bonnet under a brick.
Another has been for residents to take turns in parking their cars with a wheel clamp attached under a sign that says illegally parked cars will be clamped. FYI: Clamping and towing are pretty much forbidden in most states, except for Queensland.
I’m toying with the idea of a notice that says: “Wheel clamping is illegal in this state but, hey, if you don’t follow the rules, we won’t either. Park here again and see what happens. Fair Warning – no one will admit to having the keys to free you so you could be here for days.”
Aggressive? You bet! Legal? Possibly not. Effective? Let me know if you try 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.
Meanwhile, all they can do is complain and strata sends notices to him.
No, they can pusue Notices to Comply through NCAT, seeking penalties and Tribunal orders. Following that, they can even take him to court for failure to obey Tribunal notices. Sending “warnings” and leaving it at that is a waste of time.
If there’s a problem, send a Notice To Comply on the official form. If the brat ignores it, they should apply to NCAT for the imposition of fines (you don’t need to go through the Fair Trading mediation process) then escalate it until the departure process is accelerated.
This has the double effect of dealing with the immediate problem and letting other residents know that by-law breaches will not be tolerated. Let me stress this one more time: unofficial written warnings are a waste of time. Notices to Comply are both a warning and the absolutely essential first step to having the problem fixed.
They are not a fine because OCs can’t impose fines or penalties, so those reluctant to take action can calm themselves.
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 a complex question. If they are being accused personally of something they have done in their role as a committee member, then maybe they would come under the strata committee’s legal umbrella. If they just want to add their lawyer to the team, then that’s their decision and it should probably be at their expense.
Perhaps your best tactic at this stage is to let other owners know that you will be seeking all costs, which might get them to persuade the EC to back down.
Also if the SC loses, all owners, except you, will have to pay, regardless of whether the Tribunal awards costs (which it only does in very specific circumstances).
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.
Has there ever been a case where an Owners Corporation can force this type of owner to sell their property? Or, at least to re-instate/remove everything they have done?
I have never heard of the former and I doubt if it has ever happened – the right to property ownership is pretty much sacrosanct – but you can get to the same point by religiously enforcing all the by-law breaches that have led to this point, including seeking NCAT orders, until the miscreant wants to move of their own volition.
As for the second part – which is related to the first – the OC has the absolute right to seek orders at NCAT to protect and restore common property and that’s exactly the kind of totally reasonable action that might drive the recalcitrant out of your building (and make sure that whomever they sell to knows the issues have to be 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.
All I can see in the Act is a reference to the executive committee being required to elect office-bearers. I can’t see anything that would prevent an agenda item to declare one of those roles vacant then for an election of someone to fill it. On the other hand, I can’t see anything that would specifically permit it.
EC members can, however, be removed from the committee entirely by the vote of a simple majority 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.
Make the claim and let the insurers decide whether or not they want to pursue it with your neighbour. Cracked walls or slabs are no job for DIY amateurs.
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 regs say block light, not filter or reduce. You have to wonder why they felt the need to add the reference to privacy – maybe to ensure they cover all or most of the windows? I’d stick with what’s there – provided they comply with by-laws about appearance.
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 council clearly ordered the developer to install specific inappropriate plants, then surely it’s the council’s liability.
Otherwise it’s the developer’s responsibility – even if they were fulfilling a request from the owners (who had no standing before the first AGM).
The council not telling the developer not to use certain plants doesn’t make the council responsible, IMHO.
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 sounds like the OP is asking if the council isn’t liable for not advising the developer correctly. My view, it’s up to the developer to check and if they planted the wrong plants, then it’s a defect. If they did so because the council told them to, it’s up to them to take it up with the council.
Either way, the owners should not be paying a cent towards 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 the garage door is common property then the owners needs strata committee permission before they change it (by adding an opening device). That permission should come subject to a commitment by the owner to maintain and repair the door and the mechanism.
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.
Make a claim directly with the strata insurer and see what happens.
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.
Would it make any difference if the pay-per-use machines were already there? Common use laundries are fairly rare these days. All laundries use water and electricity – should that be provided free to owners who don’t have washing machines in their units?
It’s up to the owners collectively to decide what they want in their laundry and, indeed, their gym. And I think the ruling you referred to is correct in that, since the original specifications didn’t state that the laundry would have washing machines installed for the free use of owners, then there is no requirement to do so.
This is an odd one. Previous complaints about common property laundries have been about owners putting their own machines in but using common property electricity and water. This is usually resolved by installing coin-op machines.
The advantage of that is that internal laundries can be used for much-needed storage, for instance.
You may find that all it takes for a laundry to be referred to as such is the provision of water, electricity, drainage and a waterproof floor.
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.
Thanks JT. I don’t think tradies can automatically be included. They quote, get a work order, do the job, and get paid. They don’t get involved in the whole strata decision making process.
The point I was trying to make was that it isn’t just men and women in business suits that are involved. This is low-level corruption (allegedly) and calling it by another name seems like an exaggeration which doesn’t help your case.
A person just doesn’t walk into a police station and admit to a crime they just committed. They’re certainly not going to do so at a strata meeting.
That is a false analogy. Of course people don’t walk into police stations and admit to crimes – then they will be arrested charged.
But if you ask someone at a strata meeting if certain things happened on a nod and a wink, and if so, why, they might say: “Look, we’re all doing it so it evens out in the end.” And they might have a point.
I suggested you raise the issue by asking a question. I didn’t expect you to get written confessions but you’d have started a process that might have consequences for any miscreants.
There are no stratakops and the Fraud Squad would not be interested. You have to do the heavy lifting yourself, and that begins with asking pertinent questions in a reasonable tone, which you are perfectly entitled to do.
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.