Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just ask the strata manager for a copy of the contract. It’s part of the strata record and you are entitled to see any of the strata records.
I’ve asked several times for contracts and never had an issue getting a copy.
I’m a bit confused here.
You say that no conclusion could be reached.
I assume that you submitted a motion for your proposal and it was an agenda item at the AGM.
If that’s correct, then the motion is voted on and it’s either passed or it is not.
Most motions require a simple majority. It’s only in exceptional cases that a unanimous agreement is required (almost certainly not in your case).
I would be asking the chair to declare the outcome of your motion, or get an explanation of why your motion was deferred. Perhaps you need to ask for an EGM paid for by the OC to properly consider your motion since it was “missed” at the AGM.
Looks like you’re being bullied by the chair.
In NSW pre 1974 Buildings are subject to special consideration.
You need to refer to the strata plan
If the line across the patio door is a solid line, then it’s OC responsibility
If the line is dashed its owners responsibility
Despite the common belief that patio doors in pre 1974 buildings are owner responsibility, there are exceptions due to how that strata plan was drawn.
Speaking as an electronic engineer with an interest in radio and to.
1) NBN and tv cabling are two separate things. For a limited time, NBN will cable your building and each unit for free. However there may be some cases where the OC gets the building cabled for NBN by their own contractor.
2) If your building to cable is the old flat cable, then yes you need to replace it as modern TV sets will not receive signals on it effectively.
Modern TV sets need good quality coax cabling. It has less losses which means less drop outs in the signal on the tv.
A good installer will measure the tv signal at your building and then design splitters and amplifiers so that sufficient signal gets to each unit. If the installer can’t do the design then they’re not for you.
In a 70s block the biggest cost will be the running of the cabling, not the amplifiers and splitters.
As to future proofing. Yeah do the tradies can predict the future? Get what works today and no better.
Good luck
The down pipes are common property.
Though the particular pipe you mention is in one lot, generally down pipes service more than one lot ( you need to think about all the down Pipes)
In any case, write to the OC asking for the pipes to be fixed. Whilst the OC works out who is responsible for the pipes, the OC has the power to fix the issue, and then pay for it themselves , if it’s common property, or charge the lot owner.
There is little need for you to suffer.
An alternative is to ask the offending lot owner to rectify the problem saying that it is causing damage to your property and you will seek damages. I bet that lot owner gets onto the OC quickly. Now you have two fighting one.
BTW get another strata manager. The current one seems clueless.
Yes and no.
But generally no.
The member acting on his own would need to prove to the OC that he was acting in their best interests. That being a very subjective argument, it would be hard to satisfy owners.
The committee is the executive council of the OC. That means that decisions are made collectively.
There are situations where elected committee are absent (ie they don’t participate in the decision making process). In this case the chairman needs to make sure the members participate, or ask them to resign or have them removed by a resolution.
Some committee members, in a misguided way, just make unilateral decisions for the OC, believing they are doing good. The chairman needs to have a word with this type of member.
I’d call BS on the committee member. Legal aid only helps persons , not body corporates, and only for criminal cases.
In any case ask for the written advice from legal aid. Bet he cant show it.
What did the tribunal rule? Does it matter who builds the screen? If the tribunal has ruled the screen needs to be built and it’s on common property, the OC has to do it in reasonable time. Let them deal with council and builders.
If it is common property it’s the choice of the OC in terms of materials and design.
If you want to do it to your design, and you want to pay for it, then you will need a bylaw.
That’s another can of worms.
Don’t fight the OC, fight your landlord.
You have the right to peaceful enjoyement of your unit under your lease.
Write to the landlord ( so you have a record).
Tell him you are going to Fair Trading or whoever adjudicates leasing disputes in your state, and will be seeking a rental reduction for the period of the inconvenience.
The landlord, seeing his income decreasing should get onto the OC and get the appropriate action.
Your voice as a tenant holds little sway with the OC.
Let the landlord do the heavy lifting.
In my humble opinion, the concept of rules in strata is fraught with danger.
Lets see how I can explain.
The SSMA prescribes that the “rules” of a strata are embodied in the bylaws. The by laws are voted on by the owners, and are enforceable by a court of law.
Some strata can make rules ie put your own bin out, no jumping in the pool, but unless these are embodied in a bylaw they are just advisory. The rules are not enforceable , especially in a court of law. Ie the OC has no legal standing to enforce penalties for a breach of rules , whether by a fine or other means. Remember even in the case of a breach of a by law, it’s the court that imposes the penalty.( though it’s paid to the OC)
Now I would not suggest that strata don’t have some simple rules. It provides a quick way to manage simple problems but it depends on the goodwill of owners to make them work.
If the issue is more complex (let’s say owners lending swipe cards to non owners), then a bylaw should be struck.
My opinion – bylaws are fully enforceable, rules are not.
Casuarina
I think you meant action or matter rather than appeal. (Appeal comes after a court judgement)
In any case , it is the OC defending the action, and whilst defending the action all OC legal costs are paid by the OC. The costs come out of the administrative fund (or there may be a special levy) but in any case all lot owners contribute according to their unit entitlements.
If the owner refuses to pay whilst proceedings are under way, then he becomes unfinancial (that means they cannot vote at meetings) and after one month penalty interest applies.
Section 90 of the SSMA says that a court can award costs. These are awarded after the case is completed. The usual way costs are awarded is that the loser pays the winners (reasonable) costs. Section 90 says the court can award the costs to be apportioned at the courts discretion. That means that a winning owner may not have to contribute to the OC legal costs. BUT it is up to the discretion of the court.
If you have not yet engaged a lawyer, do so. To me there are persuasive arguments for both sides. A lawyer will be able to advise you what chance you have of being successful. You then decide to take the risk or not.
From my experience (not at NCAT though) a court can be a crap shoot. Its not that the courts are unfair, nor unprofessional. Its that the side with the most persuasive argument (ie the better lawyer usually) will get the favourable ruling.
Nemisis
the BCA is a constantly evolving document. Many design features of the past now do not meet current BCA rules.
However the building codes administered by the local council do not compel any owner of property to upgrade to meet current standards ( can you imagine the flurry of building work that would arise every time a new BCA was published).
So the OC is not required to upgrade balastrades built to old standards.
However if the balastrades have fallen into disrepair, the OC must repair them. Depending on the extent of repairs required, the council may require that the balastrades be upgraded to the current standard.
If the state of repair is not the issue and you just think they are [not] safe, consult other owners and see if they are the same opinion. Write a letter to the secretary asking to put a motion to the EGM to renew the balastrades.
If enough owners agree with you it would pass.
The act says
Content of strata roll
Information about lots
The following information must be recorded in the strata roll in relation to a particular lot in the strata scheme— Section 178
(b) an address for service of notices,
(c) an Australian postal address, and an email address if the holder has one, if not provided as the address for service,
From the act its clear that email addresses form part of the strata roll .
If the OC is sending notices to the email address and he email address is not on the strata roll, then they breach 178(b) as the email address is not the address for service of notices.
Irrespective of the above statement, 178(c) says the email address must be recorded on the strata roll if the owner has one.
FYI: I spent 10 minutes cleaning up the leftover coding from copy and paste material in this post – never again! Go to the next page to see why Kaindub is right … but still wrong.
Sorry Jimmy
email addresses are part of the OC records, whether recorded on the strata roll or not.
Many OC now send notices by email. Since you can only send a notice to an”address” that is registered on the strata they then form part of the strata roll
in any case if correspondence is done by email, the correspondence is part of the OC records. There is no “privacy” with this type of correspondence.
I hate it that SM a) refuse to provide access to owners to OC records b) hide behind privacy legislation. Some SM need more education
Ausfrosty
complete the exit condition report yourself and then make an application to fair trading for your bond.
its then up,to the landlord to prove the final condition. You may have to go to court if the landlord disputes your request.
you then need your completed final condition report. You may need your ex neighbour to testify that the landlord entered the property after you left.
if you have photos of the final condition all the better.
the above actions put the onus on the landlord to prove their claim.
i can’t see that you have done anything unreasonable.
Robert
It’s unlikely a bylaw transferring Windows to owner property would be legal or upheld by NCAT unless all owners agreed. That means all 4 owners , not just the usual 75%, would have to agree to the bylaw.
If the windows of the affected lot owners are in a state of disrepair, then they must be fixed. That’s the obligation of the OC. If there are insufficient funds, then a special levy needs to be raised. It’s no defence of the OC to claim lack of money.
But it seems to me that two owners want the Windows replaced largely on aesthetic grounds. In that case the owners can pay for it themselves.
A bylaw may not be necessary, if the OC decides to own and maintain the Windows in the future. The other owners and the OC are getting replacement windows at no cost, putting off a cost of the future. And if the Windows are installed correctly, the maintenance in the medium term will be less than if they were not replaced.
The owners paying for the Windows my feel aggrieved in the future if the other Windows are replaced by the OC at the OC cost.
Final word. An owner does not own the common property. An owner may be dissatisfied with the style, colour or aesthetic of the common property but one bought into the strata on an “as it is” basis. To expect that the common property can be changed to suit their tastes is folly.