[Jimmy-T]

If you don’t have the stomach for a pretty straightforward NCAT hearing, you aren’t going to last long in a stink-war of attrition.  Tell the other owners that they are opening themselves up to long and expensive legal challenges if they DON’T pass the by-law as is. They will have to pay to defend the building against perfectly reasonable complaints about smoke.  That should get their attention.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

melmike wrote:

Are we within our rights to keep insisting they find an alternate solution and can we deny the dog free access to the pool area?

What does it say in the by-laws?  Many buildings have a by-law that says pets are not allowed to wander on common property unattended.  If you don’t have one, you might have trouble getting one if they have 25 per cent of the vote.

As for “You knew we had a dog” the only possible answer is “Yes, but we didn’t know you were selfish, entitled sh**s.”

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.

[Jimmy-T]

This is a clear case of cigarette smoke being a nuisance. Gather your evidence (as per previous posts on this topic – search for “smoking” in the Forum search box), seek mediation at Fair Trading and when that doesn’t work – note “when” not “if” – take it to NCAT.

You have a right to breath clean air and “smoke from smoking” is defined as a “nuisance” in the same part of the Act that says strata residents must not create a nuisance for other residents.

It will take a while, judging by other posts, but you will get there.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

The following just landed in Linkedin from a Victorian owner Kerry Ould:

Pretty sad that u have to do a quick trip to Bali to sell ur holiday house that u have had for 10 years because the piece of crap apartment u bought in Melb is going to send u bascially broke this year because all Govs have failed consumers.

Big shout out to the VBA for not picking up on [builder/developer] years ago we did write to u to warn u along with others in their builds could u be anymore pathetic just a pack of bullies coming after us and we are in contact with all the other builds that are drowning in building orders this has now taken 4 years of my life . Change is needed

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Austman wrote:

If this is strata “secrecy” then it’s a widespread national issue and it has been for a long time.  I can’t quite see the national crisis.

Your sarcasm is noted and, dare I say it, misplaced.  If you want to play a numbers game, there are considerably fewer (about 15 percent) strata schemes in Victoria and all the other states put together than there are in NSW and Queensland combined.

And if you are saying the strata processes in Tasmania, WA and SA are superior to NSW and Queensland, you are clearly using a different set of metrics from mine

But there’s a fundamental question that’s more important: is it better to keep owners in the dark about what their strata committees are discussing?

That’s the old way.  The “up-to-date” way is to let owners know what’s going on at every step of the process and if they choose not to engage then they can’t complain if things go wrong.

If a group of owners get together periodically, don’t tell the other owners what they’re discussing, don’t allow anyone to observe their meetings and selectively report (if at all) on the discussions they had, that is pretty much a definition of secrecy.

And, with all due respect, your experience of the schemes where you have owned and served on committees is specific – it’s limited to the schemes you have owned in.  Have you ever owned in a building where the managers and committee members colluded to rip off the other owners?

Have you ever owned in a building where the original committee hid defects from the other owners and potential purchasers so they could sell before the problems were found?

No? Does that mean they don’t exist or or such behaviour never occurs.  Or is it only NSW that has these problems?

The last time NSW strata owners were asked how many of their schemes had defects, the response was off the scale.

But in Victoria? Nothing.  Nada.  No figures.  Does this mean there are no problems in Victorian strata schemes? Or does it just mean that most owners don’t know, those who do know don’t want to report it so they can sell out befoe the value of their property is harmed, and the media has no idea how serious it is, or don’t care.

That’s exactly how things were in NSW 15 years ago and that’s why I say Victorian strata law is behind the times.

It must be great for those blocks where there are few problems – but less fanatastic that we won’t know about the others where there are serious problems until it’s too late.

Austman wrote:

Requiring the formality as per NSW would mean, in one of my OCs in VIC, on a busy week, the issuing of 4 or 5 notices of committee meetings because, on a busy week a new issue comes up nearly each day.   How would the committee be able to deal with that requirement?

Yeah, great argument but it doesn’t wash. Most issues that need an instant response have been anticipated by delegation to the strata or building manager, who reports to the next committee meeting.

My 20-year-old block of 130-plus units has a lot of “end-of-life” issues with infrastructure, as well as all the other stuff about short-term rentals and residents renovating etc etc. They get by with one committee meeting a month.  So where is this notion that they would need five meetings a week come from?

It’s just not real.  No building in NSW that I know of works like that because they don’t need to.  That’s the reality.

Again, may I say, this is not a “strata of origin” issue.  But that’s why Victoria is behind the times – because every time someone says you could be doing better there, we get the same false equivalence arguments about how Victorian strata is just hunky-dory compared to NSW.

Maybe your own schemes are, Austman, but reports are rolling in that others are in trouble. And just wait until the dodgy developers driven out by the NSW building commissioner set up shop in Victoria.

Of course, it will take years for the stories to get out because the luckless owners will be kept in the dark.  Good luck with that.

 

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.

[Jimmy-T]

86_strata wrote:

Hey Jimmy,  Is it really behind the times though? … What happens in the apartment is no business of the OC.

I think allowing individual owners to do too much within their units that does affect other lots, even indirectly, is a proven recipe for dissent and disaster.

The NSW system is far from perfect.  But there has to be a process where work that compromises the integrity of the structure is monitored and responsibility clearly assigned.

Tiles in the bathroom are a case in point. If someone’s renovation affects the waterproofing of an adjoining wall, the ensuing battle of who pays to fix it when the damp starts to spread is a huge waste of time, money and emotional energy.

All of that can be avoided if there is a simple process in place where, when common property is involved, the owner tells the strata committee what their plans are, and the tradies involved have to be licensed and insured.

It’s all about the individual’s responsibility to the community and Victorian strata seems to have gone in a different direction and tried to treat apartments as if they were free-standing houses.  They’re not and never can be, and I believe that trying to hang on to an irrelevant model of home ownership is “behind the times”.

 

 

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.

[Jimmy-T]

TrulEConcerned wrote:

… She suggested one lot with 2 owners each be nominated and run for election (so that lot would have 2 members on the committee) …

This may not have been the case when this attempt at committee stacking occurred, but Section 31 of the Act currently says:

(4) Only one co-owner (including a company nominee of a co-owner) of the same lot may be a member of a strata committee at the same time, except as provided by subsection (5).

(5)  A person who is an owner of more than one lot in the strata scheme may nominate one person for election as a member of the strata committee for each lot for which the person is an owner.

TrulEConcerned wrote:

[The committee secretary] rewrote history by withdrawing the motion from the agenda (something I doubt is legal once an agenda is distributed and the motion about to be voted on).

For the record, this was perfectly legal and probably not as unusual as you might think. Section 15 of Schedule 2 of the Act says: “The chairperson at a meeting may rule a motion out of order if the chairperson considers that the motion, if carried, would conflict with this Act or the by-laws of the strata scheme or would otherwise be unlawful or unenforceable.”

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.

[Jimmy-T]

gazelle wrote:

We don’t appear to have any site specific by-laws. They all look pretty standard except for this one: “That the decision of the officers in the council would be executed only if unanimous, if they were not unanimous, and Extraordinary General Meeting would be held to resolve the matter“.

That by-law isn’t only redundant, it’s invalid. Schedule 2, Section 9 of the Act says this:

Voting at meetings

A motion put to a meeting is to be decided according to a majority of the number of the votes cast for and against the motion by the members present (other than any tenant member) …

You can’t have a by-law that supersedes the law, and the unanimity by-law gives a veto to any member of the committee.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

spmanager wrote:

Remember … 25% of owners can block the committee from resolving any issue.

Good point but has anybody ever heard of this happening … apart from in this 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.

[Jimmy-T]

gazelle wrote:

I presume that we should engage a strata lawyer for this.

You presume right, when it comes to additional by-laws.  There are two top-class strata lawyers advertising at the top of this page.  Call them up and ask for quotes.

Getting this done through lawyers should reassure your neighbours that it’s necessary and that what you end up with will stand the test of time (and recalcitrant owners).

However, the size of the scheme probably won’t affect the fee.  By-laws apply equally to everyone so the numbers don’t make much difference.

Otherwise, your existing by-laws will have been automatically updated  under Schedule 2 of the strata Regulations, so your basic by-laws are up-to-date, regardless.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

This has been a glaring hole in strata management contracts for decades and the strata managers’ professional body in its various iterations, previously fought tooth and nail to protect its members immunity from liability.

This included threatening to sue owners corps for copyright infringement if they tried to use the rest of their standard contracts with perfectly reasonable amendments.

However, the NSW SCA (the strata managers professional body) last year was accepted into the Professional Standards Scheme. This comes with certain self-regulatory commitments, including a review of their  standard contract.

And we hear that Fair Trading is also looking at fixing that at the next strata law changes.

So the answer is, if your strata manager refuses to change the liability clauses in their contract, find one who will.  They’re out there – just keep looking.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Unless the by-law includes a provision that the lot owners are responsible for the upkeep of the blinds, I don’t see any point.  What is the by-law intended to achieve?

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.

[Jimmy-T]

The idea that you might be excluded from a meeting that discusses an issue in which you have some personal or financial interest is deeply flawed. Don’t all the other members of the committee have a personal or financial interest in the outcome too?

I was just reading a VCAT ruling the other day where the Members said that they didn’t think an owner should have been excluded from the meeting where they discussed his actions against them at the tribunal as it wasn’t a conflict of interest any more for the owner concerned than for the committee members.

On the other hand, they also noted that they were not prepared to say that there were no situations where it might be appropriate to exclude the owner from the 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.

[Jimmy-T]

86_strata wrote:

What do you mean by ‘internal common property wall’?  If it is an external wall, then I thought you as the owner were responsible for the internal property-facing side of the wall i.e. the internal wall, plaster, membrane etc. that is shared with the brickwork on the outside (which is the OC).

It’s different in Victoria.  In NSW and, I believe, Queensland, any surface that backs on to common property or an adjoining lot is common property too.  Another example of how Victorian strata law is behind the times.

 

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.

[Jimmy-T]

The first questions I would ask are:

1. Do you charge Schedule B fees and if so, can we put a cap on them?
2. Can we meet the person who will be our strata manager, what is their experience, and can we have the mobile numbers of the secretaries or chairs of their previous buildings?
3. How many other buildings will our SM be managing?

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.

[Author]

Replies