Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It strikes me that a Special Sustainability Resolution is the easiest way to get an agreement that obliges the installer to agree to maintain and repair the windows and doors as need be.
Just go to the meeting and ask that it be amended to a Special Sustainability Resolution – which only requires a 51 per cent vote in favour (like any 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.
As people try to be more energy efficient and reduce costs, you might find demand for open air drying goes up, not down.
I would wait until the increases in energy costs kick in, then take a poll among all residents – owners and renters – and see how they feel about losing a free laundry drying facility.
By the way, according to strata lawyer David Bannerman in last week’s podcast, bans on laundry on balconies are gradually being phased out in many strata schemes.
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.
… going by the act you have quoted it’s straightforward and achievable.
Achievable, for sure, but straightforward? I don’t know how many people usually turn up at general meetings in Victoria – or hand in proxies or postal votes – but 75 per cent of all owners or unit entitlements is a massive threshold.
Even 50% of all owners (not just those present or voting at the meeting) is hard to achieve. Then there’s the whole 29 days “cooling off” period while you wait to see if the opposition can garner 25% of the votes against.
Compare that to NSW where it takes 75 % of votes in favour by the unit entitlements of lots represented at the meeting. If it passes, it passes; if it fails, it fails. Now that is straightforward. It’s not perfect but it’s easy to understand.
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.
… in my SP we are zoned for that sort of thing and it is DA exempt… (including) Intensive plant agriculture.
Looks like you’re also OK to grow serious amounts of hydro as soon as they legalise cannabis.
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’m not sure what your problem with Victoria is …
Lack of transparency (owners have no right to attend strata committee meetings), complete breakdown of underfunded CAV and clogging of VCAT with a two-year waiting list for hearings. Meanwhile rogue strata committees neglect their responsibilities and openly flout the law with no redress (such as one refusing to hold an AGM on the grounds that they were likely to be voted off, and CAV, VCAT and ministers not even responding to complaints). And then you have the flammable cladding shambles. And the Aurora scandal.
Everywhere has problems in strata but at least other states have avenues for resolving them. Victoria has a hidden crisis because politicians and the mainstream media just don’t want to know. It’s just like NSW – only 20 years ago.
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.
Setting aside concerns for soaring energy costs and global warming, sadly typical of Victorian strata law, this is not as simple as it should be. You will need a special resolution to change common property which requires a vote in favour of 75% of all owners (not just those voting at the meeting) or 75% of unit entitlements (ditto), if a poll vote is taken.
However, if the vote at the meeting is more than 50% of all owners in the block in favour, and fewer than 25% vote against, it is considered an interim special resolution, in which case owners must be informed withing 14 days and then objectors have 29 days to raise a 25% vote against, otherwise it becomes a special resolution.
No wonder Victorian strata is such a mess. How does anything significant ever get decided?
In this specific case, the following may be significant:
An owners corporation must not make a significant alteration to the use or appearance of the common property unless … there are reasonable grounds to believe that an immediate alteration is necessary to ensure safety or to prevent significant loss or damage.
Otherwise, here (below) are the requirements for changing common property under non-emergency circumstances.
OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 – SECT 52
Significant alteration to common property requires special resolution
An owners corporation must not make a significant alteration to the use or appearance of the common property unless—
(a) the alteration is
S. 52(a)(i) amended by No. 2/2008 s. 12(2).
(i) first approved by a special resolution of the owners corporation; or
(ii) permitted by the maintenance plan; or
(iii) agreed to under section 53; or
(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that an immediate alteration is necessary to ensure safety or to prevent significant loss or damage.
OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 – SECT 53
Upgrading of common property
(1) An owners corporation may by special resolution approve the carrying out of upgrading works for the common property and the levying of fees on lot owners for that purpose.
S. 53(1A) inserted by No. 78/2013 s. 7.
(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), the fees must be based on lot liability.
S. 53(1B) inserted by No. 78/2013 s. 7.
(1B) Fees for upgrading works carried out wholly or substantially for the benefit of some or one, but not all, of the lots affected by the owners corporation must be levied on the basis that the lot owner of the lot that benefits more pays more.
(2) In this section “upgrading works” means building works for the upgrading, renovation or improvement of the common property where—
(a) the total cost of the works is estimated to be more than twice the total amount of the current annual fees; or
(b) the works require a planning permit or a building permit before they can be carried out—
but does not include works that are provided for in an approved maintenance plan or works referred to in section 4(b).
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.
Even if your friend’s landlord has a valid reason for early termination of the lease, tenants are usually still entitled to at least 60 days’ notice.
Tenants Victoria has this excellent fact sheet which covers most if not all of the possible scenarios for a “rental provider” ending a lease before it runs out. It recommends getting in touch with Tenants Vic as soon as the notice is received.
One passage worth noting is this:
A rental provider can also give a 14-day notice to vacate if the property was their principal place of residence immediately before the rental agreement started, but only if:
-
The rental agreement stated that they intended to move back in at the end of the renter’s first or second fixed-term agreement
-
The notice is given before the end of the first, or second, fixed term in the rental agreement [section 91ZW]. Documentary evidence is required [section 91ZZO]).
The relevant sections of the Act state that even if the notice is valid, it has to be for a minimum of 60 days. See below:
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1997 – SECT 91ZZA
Premises to be occupied by residential rental provider or provider’s family
(1) A residential rental provider may give a renter a notice to vacate rented premises if the premises are immediately after the termination date to be occupied—
(a) by the residential rental provider; or
(b) in the case of a residential rental provider who is an individual—
(i) by the residential rental provider‘s partner, child, parent or partner‘s parent; or
(ii) by another person who normally lives with the residential rental provider and is wholly or substantially dependent on the residential rental provider.
(2) The notice must specify a termination date that is not less than 60 days after the date on which the notice is given.
RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1997 – SECT 91ZZO
Form of notice to vacate
A notice to vacate given under this Division is not valid unless—
(a) it is in the relevant prescribed form; and
(b) it is addressed to the renter; and
(c) it is signed by the person giving the notice or by that person’s agent; and
(d) it specifies the reason or reasons for giving the notice; and
(e) in the case of a notice to vacate given under section … 91ZZA … it is accompanied by documentary evidence, as approved by the Director from time to time, which supports the reason for giving the notice; and
Note
See section 486A.
(f) it specifies the termination date which is the date by which compliance is required.
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.
Installing double glazing is defined as a minor renovation (not requiring a special resolution) under Section 23 of the Strata Regulations. However, it is also subject to the rules under Section 110 (minor renovations) and possibly Section 132B (sustainability) of the Strata Management Act.
In short, I think the committee (if so empowered) could approve this but should demand a binding and continuing undertaking to maintain and repair the windows and doors at the lot owner’s expense and with the proviso that it wouldn’t alter the outward appearance of the block.
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 problem isn’t the sex-workers, it’s their clients? Really?
THEN
A girl in my former block … had all sort of clients coming through or waiting in the foyer at all sort of hours, often times with their mates awaiting in the car. And your property becomes known as such to all the wrong sort of people.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me (in a backhanded way). It’s true that without the sex worker there would be no clients, but without the clients there would be no sex worker. Deter the customers and the lady of the night will move on – try to deter the working girl and you face all sorts of legal rights issues.
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.
Low-cost and social housing tend to be sold to organisations rather than individuals, whether it’s housing associations, charities or local governments, as they are in the best position to regulate the access to the most deserving or appropriate tenants.
Since they are the owners, they would be paying the levies, as would other landlords, so they are less likely to default on levies than owner occupiers or private landlords.
Since rents are rocketing and rental availability is very low, private landlords are protected to some extent from rising interest rates.
Thus the most vulnerable group to levies stress is probably owner occupiers who bought when prices were high and interest rates were low, stretching their resources to the max when the financial winds changed direction.
I don’t think there is any model where low-cost apartments are sold to individual owners (please correct me if I am wrong) although there may well be some buyers who benefitted from first-home grants who are now feeling the pinch.
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.
They can give me helpful advise on use but cannot restrict me in my own decision making.
On that point, the strata committee can make reasonable rules about the behaviour of residents, including how and when they use facilities. You don’t have the freedom to do exactly as you please and this is a principle that we all accept when we move into strata. But the key word is “reasonable” and I think it’s hard to argue that it’s reasonable to lock a swimming pool at 5.30 pm.
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.
First things first, who do you mean by “strata”? The strata manager, the strata committee or the building manager?
Either way, if you are an owner you can petition the committee (with the support of other swimmers) to alter the opening hours.
If you are a tenant, you can ask the landlord to do the same, or reduce your rent due to the loss of amenity.
If this has happened because some residents have complained about noise from the pool, there must be better ways of dealing with this than shutting the facility completely.
As a last resort, you could threaten to take the strata scheme to court or a tribunal for unreasonable removal of an essential facility which was part of the reason you bought into or rented in the scheme in the first place.
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 advice provided by the lawyers should be part of the records of the scheme so, if you are an owner, you are entitled to see it. If they say it was verbal, then you are definitely entitled to challenge it. Mediation is definitely the way to go.
By the way, I can’t believe that any competent strata lawyer would advise strata managers to ignore the law, which states that all owners in a scheme are entitled to so I would take this second-hand advice with a large pinch of salt.
That said, I’m not sure if you are an owner in the scheme to which you are referring. If not, different criteria apply.
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.
A transparent scheme would openly discuss with and disclose to all owners these changes well before the meeting. Surely its behaviour demonstrates bad faith by the strata committee.
Does it? I subscribe to the view that you should never ascribe to malice anything that can just as easily be explained by stupidity
Otherwise your questions are pretty granular and are therefore less likely to be addressed by elements of the Act
(1) Must a OC or SC inform owners before a meeting of the reasoning and justification behind revising the contract?
This is effectively a new contract (regardless of whether it’s a revision of an old one or not). They should answer quastions at the meeting as to why they have decided to go down this road.
(2) Can the strata manager take instructions (to have a general meeting) from a committee member who has sold out of the scheme? If so, what sections of the Act can I rely on?
This is such a specific and illogical occurrence that it would never have been envisaged in the writing of the Act, so the answers are “no” and “nowhere”.
(3) Must a strata manager or SC inform the owners in a timely manner if any a member of the strata committee has sold his lot or resigned from the Strata Committee? If so, what sections of the Act can I rely on?
It’s more likely to be the other way round – that the committee informs the manager and the other owners that someone is no longer a member. There is no part of the Act that includes that specific requirement (that I’m aware of).
Also, since being an owner is not a prerequisite of membership of the committee, it depends how the member was nominated. If they nominated themselves and then sell, they might fall foul of section 35 on eligibility:
35 Vacation of office of elected member of strata committee
(1) An elected member of a strata committee vacates office as a member:
(a) if the person was eligible to be a member at the time of election and the person ceases to be so eligible (other than because the person is an unfinancial owner)…But it’s not as simple as it should be.
(4) If I wish to put my NCAT case to all owners ahead of the NCAT hearing, must the agent provide me with contact details of all owners or can she withhold these details from me?
The contact addresses and email addresses are part of the strata records which the strata manager must make available for perusal and copying on request and payment of the standard fee. This is not “provision” – just access. The standard excuses of privacy, for instance for not revealing email addresses, are total BS and just a smokescreen. If they have email addresses, even if it’s just for sending out notices, then they are part of the record and should be revealed.
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.
-