[justsaying]

Hi everyone

i was asking for suggestions and thank you for the reply. I thought it may help others if I explain the following info. I contacted OFT who was  very helpful. Basically, I need to file three forms, application for mediation, interim order and adjudication. The interim order is to stop more unauthorised expenditure and to demand full accounting of funds. Question of removing a committee that is fully aware that they have breached the Act is currently being discussed by owners. the other two applications follow the interim order. Applications going in next week with all the minutes .

The painting to the foyers has ceased with doors half painted and patched…. A lovely welcome for guests at this time!

No response from any letters, although other owners have managed to speak to the strata manager. We will definitely attend EC meetings now, so that’s positive.

I’ ll keep you posted on the progression , in general practical terms

thanks again 

[justsaying]

This may be a little left field but generally how do strata owners determine what needs to be undertaken to comply with legislation for OHS? Should stairs have rails, for example? I would be interested in your comments thank you

[justsaying]

I agree with you Jimmy about the police coming into a building and offering advice. It is a no-brainer!  That’s just what they did in my area! Wonderful advice! There is also a security firm in Sydney that will also do this free of charge. Did the wise men take that advice…. No way! We are stuck with a dark car park,  lights with sensors with narrow angles…

Was it approved at a GM… course not… 

As they say: another day in paradise

[justsaying]

I agree that some  improvement on the fire door would help. I do have some suggestions regarding the security cameras though. As someone who has had severe damage to cars whilst parked in the car space, the police were very interested, coming several times and advised that if the OC installed good quality CCTV with the ability to backup for viewing then the chances of catching the perpetrator was much higher. For me, a person was seen beside my cars but unless I could prove it by vision it was my word against his/her.

It was also a resident who was acting suspiciously not a intruder. We have installed two CCTV cameras over the entrance that only has the ability to view 90 degrees. The other is in the Gym… not sure why this was necessary. Today I tried to enter the garbage room and was overwhelmed by the rubbish /furniture left.. now CCTV would be very helpful there.

Our very wise men took the decision to remove the lights and replace them with a movement sensor style. The entire car park is now in darkness unless one walks directly near the sensors. So I’m not convinced about the lighting suggestion.

I agree that increased security does improve property values. After all, searches on property can easily determine the history of a scheme.

 On a positive note, because residents took careful notice of one such person he was eventually charged with breaking and entering.

[justsaying]

Thank you for your comments. To clarify, owners agreed to the motion to stop heating the pool between Winter months. I have no issue with this as it was on the agenda for debate.  There was no amendment regarding the reduction of the pool temperature. The EC simply took this decision although the previous year the full motion regarding the swimming pool included the temperature lowering was defeated.

I question if the EC has a mandate to change the temperature  of a swimming pool without notice and approval.

It also  seems to me that an EC can make changes to a scheme IF an item is included in a budget…. TRUE or FALSE?

cheers

[justsaying]

thanks very much Whale! You understand the situation very well and that is exactly how I expect the annual statement to appear…. Both SM and EC has had a “please explain”…. typically no response.

The mediation was simple. After years of requesting work to repair a property it went to mediation. The EC (2) appeared with legal representation. I assume it was because of the lack of knowledge by the EC to understand their obligations and to avoid it if possible. Certainly their lawyers tried their best to limit the work.

P.S only one section was repaired leaving part of the area not only not repaired but a damaged section because of the standard of work by the contractors….no amount of protest made a difference, the EC still refuse to attend to their obligations under the Act.

I can understand why owners attend to their own maintenance etc when clearly some of these “willing and well meaning volunteers” simply make it impossible. It’s cheaper, quicker and less stressful to pay for the work then to fight with some ECM

cheers

[justsaying]

thanks for your advice. As I understand it the OC/EC appeared at a OFT mediation with legal representation as well as two EC members.

The annual “cash statment”provided at AGM  only mentions that the legal fees was paid by an insurance claim. There is no mention of the cost BEFORE reimbursement and or to the cost to owners from the SM to administrate all correspondence. There is no mention as to why the cost normally covered by owners funds would become an insurance claim.

 I would expect that the cost would be shown with a reimbursement noted as incoming revenue?

 

There appears to be an increase of $3,000 to the base SM contract.There is nothing in the AGM minutes that mention the additional costs.

What is noted is an increase of 30% but I thinkg this may be a general increase.

thanks

[justsaying]

thanks for your advice. Since my post I have discovered that the new garage door has not been setup for remote access. Apparently, we residents were not important enough to warrant any communication regarding this because “not everyone has a remote”.  In the meantime, another type of security system has been installed at the entrance to the car park ( not in operation as yet). At the last AGM owners voted against more security in the car park, so I am very surprised that the EC made a decision to install new equipment without approval at an AGM.

I have written my oppositon to the Secretary and the SM…. the joys continue !!

[justsaying]

hi there

thank you for this information. I have been asking the EC both as an agenda item and through the building manager to provide the written results of two fluid samples that I was advised had been taken by the EC. This was to determine if the damage to both my cars (both written off) was via the slab above the car.

Firstly I was advised the results were attached to the Ec minutes( they were not). Then I was advised by the Secretary that he would send them to me (this has not occured.) Now they say only one sample was taken even though I was present for the second collection!

This issue has been ongoing since 2010 with the latest sample taken in mid 2012.

My second issue relates to water ingress to my property that has resulted in a less than satisfactory result where part of the courtyard was left damaged and remains damp. Despite numerous attempts to ask the EC not the pay the full amount (over $60,000) until it was fully restored they will not give me any details or speak to me directly as suggested by OFT. It is my understanding that damage that occurs during/following works must be repaired at OC cost.  I have offered to meet them halfway financially to get the matter resolved Again placed on EC agenda with no effect.

It seems to me that some EC’s lose sight of owners rights and high handedly plough on making decisons with no realisation that they cannot make unilateral decisions and do so because most owners simply don’t have the strength to battle on and others just want to live without the angst.

For me I will take it to OFT and engage a solictor to represent me. Not only will it cost me but it will cost all owners to face OFT when it simply could be handled within the scheme.

I will take your advice and mention the law and making bad decisions, I can but hope!

thanks again

[justsaying]

Thanks Chris

I agree with your comments. However, been there, done that, never again!  Verbally abused, property destroyed etc, for speaking out and suggesting that all owners (including the EC) need to abide by the bylaws. I simply cannot get any answers from the usual quarters.  My next step is to ask questions  formally on the ECM agenda.  A Chair who not only doesn’t understand the Act he thinks he is the Lord of the manor and watches everyone and their private business. A Secretary who doesn’t respond to correspondence .ECM’s held in private homes doesn’t encourage other owners to attend meetings.  Working with a group of people who don’t /can’t understand the Act a SM who just sits by because they don’t listen and so on. It’s a nightmare !

Basically, I need some firm examples of the best way to manage the BM’s work and  who reports and evaluate the work to ensure quality management. That way I can go armed with the best approach to a AGM and hopefully get some support to harness the huge amount of money paid to the company.

cheers

[justsaying]

Thank you very much for your informative reply. I understand that the contract is not with me personally, however I understand that the EC should have the interests of all owners to ensure works to any common property is satisfactory and of an acceptable standard. I also understand that the EC has a duty of care to ensure the Act is upheld. Some lawyers can debate what is a workman like manner and acceptable, high standard, fit for purpose, and so on and owners pay for the privilege. The strata lawyer I engaged advised I had no case to apply for a CTTT order. 

 I have put the issues in writing to the EC, office bearers. SM and BM several times and given them a time frame. I asked for it to be listed on the EC agenda. This has not happened. I even offered to meet the EC halfway on the costs. Obviously I don’t want the OC to have additional costs of OFT/CTTT, so I requested the EC to act in a reasonable manner by insisting the builder return and make good the damage to the courtyard. This was denied by email from office bearers acting “on behalf of the EC”.  As I had to seek OFT mediation to get the work repaired, the OFT has suggested I gather all of the evidence and apply for an order under section 62, that the EC repair the damage that has occurred as a result of this work.

I have contacted the Master Builders and I contacted the Building Codes Control admin. They advised that some of the wording in the scope of works has no basis within the code. I’ve now engaged an engineer to inspect the work and give a written report. I keep every single document fortunately. Thank you for your invitation I may call after all the reports are to hand.

On a positive note the builder has reimbursed me for the damages to my personal property this week.

 I’m not a lawyer, and rely on expert legal advice, (Strata Lawyers) but I feel that the Strata Act leaves a lot to be desired for individual lot owners. I’m guessing that investors don’t have the same issues.  The fact that anyone can have a position on a board without any qualifications, even a basic Strata course, or experience with basic maintenance issues is baffling. However I do think that generally ECM have the best of intentions. I have read that there are to be changes to the Act to ensure all ECM agree to undertake a strata course, I hope thats correct.

My levy is high and increasing every year, the  repair and maintenance work appears not to checked off by any of this EC because of the poor standard of repairs throughout the building. Strata managers can offer advice regarding the bylaws and decisions regarding changes to a lot BUT if the EC override it then we all suffer. In my case I’ve been  stressed, bullied, theatened, verbally abused for my emails etc. etc.

Like my neighbours,who managed to sell in a better market,  I will be very happy to sell out of strata and buy a Torrens title property. 

[justsaying]

May I suggest that calling OFT is usually very worthwhile particularly in recent months. I do recommend that you avail yourself of the Strata Act online before making this call.  This may avoid the costly hourly rate and expense of a strata lawyer. Personally, I have spent thousands of dollars using “expert strata advice” to no avail. However, it was OFT guidance who gave clear advice and the cost…. A phone call.

[justsaying]

With respect to the previous comments, a precedent has been set by allowing additional paths to be installed for some owners with OC funds. I recommend that you place the item on an EC meeting as correspondence, then take the item to a AGM for all owners to consider. It is inappropriate to lodge a DA at this stage and before the Executive Committee has been approached. Another thought, maybe the scheme might welcome handrails in other areas as a proactive approach to OH&S issues. Finally, the strata manager could be more helpful by assisting with the correct information. Hope all these comments are helpful to you and your mother.

[justsaying]

Common property is just that, usage for all residents. As I understand the SMMA, nothing can be stored on any part of common property. The Executive Committee’s role is to maintain and repair all common property, they do not have the authority to ask you to sign any agreement. However, at a general meeting the majority of owners can agree to allow you to use a section of common property.  Generally, this may not a good solution as it can promote abuse and misuse of the common property.

I would check if those residents above you that are using common property for pot plants etc. do have the right to do so, e.g. do they have an exclusive use of that part of the property as part of their title? OH&S is a big issue for strata these days, and your point about pots falling, is valid. Maybe there is room for negotiation ?

Finally, in order to move forward, is there any area that can be set aside for safe, secure storage of  bikes (of all types) with racks ? If so, before the next AGM get quotes for racks and put in on the agenda. 

[justsaying]

There are a number of issues here.

1)   confirm that is a strata title with your mother

2)   a handrail can be installed at the OC expense, however it needs to go to a general meeting for approval as it is an addition to the common property.

3)    A precedence has been set by allowing additional paths to be constructed for some owners with OC funds

4)    the proposal for the handrail could include general safety and slip concerns not only for your mother but for any visitors.

5)   I understand that the Government do provide some assistance for elderly folk. A Occupational Therapist could visit on a recommendation from your GP.

6)   If there is no bylaw in the scheme, and your mother has to buy the handrail your mother may have to provide one ,accepting any future maintenance for the handrail.

Good luck!

[Author]

Replies