Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
When I acquired my storage lot, I had never had to deal with a building manager. It took me a while to work out what they did and what the strata manager did.
Perhaps the new SM is in the same boat as me
Rather than hope things get better, convene a meeting with the SM, BM and committee and work out who does what.
There can be little or no overlap of the functions of the SM and BM depending on the contracts and how you want things run
Look at the strata management agreement.
I think it’s called schedule b fees. It states the hourly rate for the strata manager.
It also states when they can charge.
This is how some strata managers justify a low annual fee and then make it up on schedule b charges.
Note also that sleeping committees allow such charges to go unchallenged. Make sure the treasurer is on the hall and questioning and approving all such charges.
You can ask all the questions you want ( of the committee) and get all the warm and fuzzy answers. But this means nothing. It’s only after you become an owner and have the right to ask for changes will the real answers come out.
They owners corporation is not obliged to honour any undertakings prior to your purchase.
If the decision is adverse to you, the only option you have is to get rid of the dogs and suffer intrusion, because it’s too costly to sell up.
If it was me I’d find another property, as the risk for me is too great.
This is a tricky one, but my logic goes this way.
The OC is required to repair and maintain common property.
Termites always enter buildings through subterranean passages.
The underground is common property ( lot property is the cubic space above ground).
It can be argued ths it’s OC responsibility to maintain and repair the underground, and that damage to the skirting boards was not due to you.
I think you may have an insureable claim, so make a claim on the OC insurance ( you don’t need committee or strata manager to do this ).
If the insurer denies the claim, it will be likely thsy claim lack of maintenance, which bounces it back into the OC court.Dont expect anyone to take responsibility for this.
An oversight by the legal representatives of both parties.
From first hand experience – one or both legal representatives would have recognised this awkward situation, and the orders of the court would have specified what happens in this circumstance.
Just because there is animosity between two parties, basic rights such as attending legally mandated meetings, are generally not thrown away by the court.
However, in this case, unless the court order says otherwise, the prohibited person MUST obey the order which means staying away from the protected person. They could attend by Zoom, but there could be orders in place to not speak to the protected person.There is no allowance and a violation of the court order is a criminal offence ( ie it’s very serious).
If I was the restrained person, I would stay away from meetings where the protected person is in attendance, whether in person or remotely, to be sure there are no grounds for a breach of the order.
OR
have their lawyer ask the court for a revised order to take this circumstance into account.
Looks like your committee has a problem.
As I understand, your application to Fair Trading named the committee as respondent. So they have to deal with the mediation even if there is no strata manager.
However the legal system is not that unfair. The committee could ask for a time extension because there is no strata manager. FT could then assess the urgency of your application and what disadvantage the committee would suffer prior to making a decision about an extension.
Youll have to bide your time.
Hawcall
a slight flaw in your argument.
The building becomes the responsibility of the OC after the first AGM. Prior to thst it’s owned and/ or under the control of the developer.
The owners have no formal body, nor a consensus to instruct the developer prior to the first AGM.
The first AGM is held after the strata is registered, which occurs after an occupation certificate is issued, which requires compliance with councils DA conditions ( including plantings)
As Jimmy said, there are no stratakops.
It’s up,to the owners to make sure everything is above board.
In my case, we had strata manager paying bills which were for incorrect values, and in some cases not for our strata.
Quick fix was to move a motion thst all invoices had to be approved by the treasurer before psyment. ( there was no fraud by the strata manager, just silly mistakes)
If you suspect money is being spent improperly, at thevAGM move a motion thst the books are audited. ( msy need you to get support of other owners to pass). Then move a motion to get your chosen auditor to do the books. DO NOT USE the auditor suggested by the strata manager. These auditors go soft in order to get repeat business from the strata manager. Remember it’s your money that’s being audited and the audit is to make sure thst the money is being spent correctly ( get an auditor familiar with strata ).
The chairman has the option to declare a motion out of order under certain conditions.
Why not just have the chairman d3clare the motion out of order. The proposer can then take it to arbitration, ( and probably lose if it’s shown that the motion has been voted down previously)
The landscaping in a development is not a large cost.
The DA approved by the council includes the types of plantings required.
The developer just does the minimum to get the occupation certificate. I’ve seen many plantings suggested by the councils to turn into nightmares.
Why not use the opportunity to select and put in more suitable plantings. As long as it looks reasonable the council will not complain.
In NSW Schedule 1 part 2 refers to a motion being put to the meeting by a singular person.
So to be exact to the law, only one person can propose a motion.
Thst does not prevent multiple people proposing the same motion.
So in this case, the motion proposed by three people is not in accordance with the act ( though it would be a brave chairman to stand on this point).
And in this case, the withdrawal of one proposer of the motion would not automatically withdraw the motion, because the act considers that each individual has proposed the same motion , separate to any other proposer.
Just because NCATsays their behaviour is not in good faith is not enough to take action.
There is a level of proof required to get a prosecution. Remember thst it’s going to be a civil case. Who is going to pay the legal bills?
For the OC to engage lawyers requires a resolution at a general meeting. Maybe other owners are not thst keen to spend the moneyAlso the committee member may call on the OC insurance to indemnify their legal costs. They then have deep pockets, and deep pockets often win court cases.
So whilst technically it’s possible to sue a committee member, there are a number of obstructions in the way.
My advice always to people considering litigation is do you want to recover a loss, or do you just want to be right.
Even if you win the former, their can be a high emotional and monetary cost.
The plumber and “ strata” are absolutely correct in this case.
Whilst the pipe is under the lot space, it is actually in common property.
Its a concept one has to get to grips with.
I don’t think it’s discriminatory
It could be a safety issue to have children playing on driveways.
In any case, your by law allows children to play on common property whilst accompanied by a responsible adult. You say you provide the supervision, so you are covered.
If you don’t accompany your children, you will be in breach of the by law.
Asa an aside, modern strata buildings don’t cater for children’s play activities.
In my area I see an increasing number of families using the local park for their kids activities.
I think many people do not know thst a property owner/ developer can use a private certifier. Provided that proposed design is fully compliant with council planning rules, neighbours are not required to be informed of the development.
Ive seen a number of developments around me. The developers appear to use architects well versed in the local council planning rules, and design the building right up to the allowed envelope. Not the prettiest things, but they maximised the return for the developer.