Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
HI Dingo
The regulations for smoke detectors are that battery powered units are acceptable, but it is recomended that powered smoke alarmsare preferred.
It is not mandatory to install hardwired smoke alarms, but smoke alarms must be installed in a domestic residencs,
The fire audit your building had done, would not cover your lot UNLESS it was a multi story building that had a fire alarm board.
In the former case, its up to the lot owner to install and maintain smoke detectors.
In the latter case, its the OC responsibility to install and maintain smoke dete tors in each lot.
I think in this case the chairman has misintrpreted the fire audit, mistaking a recomendation for a must do
Just get a clarifcation from the fire audit company,
Robert
The SC is delegated, either by the SSMA or by a vote of the OC to act in certain matters.
This obviates the need to get agreement from the OC on every single matter ie it mskes management easier and quicker.
You need to determine in your situation ehich mstters the SC can act upon.
And whilst informal meetings are the way some decisions are made, I believe it is prudent to a formal meeting to document and record decisions, especially where expenfiture is involved.
If you are feeling left out, why not join the SC. My experience is that most strata are looking for committee members.
Robert
The legal the legal personal representative ie the executor or administrator is responsible for the deceased so debts. Find out who the lpr is and lodge a notice of a debt. You will be paid out ahead of any distribution, if there is one.
i suspect that if the deceased was renting, then they probably had few assets.
your insurance company will require you to go this route before considering any claim you make on them.
Whilst the strata act describes who is responsible for a fence, the law governing fences is the dividing fences act ( in NSW).
The act only says a suitable fence needs to be erected and it needs to be agreed by the owners. So if the fence is between two lots, then these owners need to agree on a fence and split the cost.
i don’t see anywhere in the strata act that allows the owners corporation to dictate the type of fence between lots .
if it’s a coo on property fence, the owners corporation has a say as to the type of fence
if it’s between a lot and common property, then the lot owner and the owners corporation need to be in agreement.
the dividing fences act is also very specific in how to remedy disputes.
Robert
My understanding is that the Sheriff takes possession of the property and sells it. He is not obliged to get the market price. Generally the Sheriff will put the property to auction where the market decides the value.
If one ever gets to a situation where one is forced by the court to sell, I can’t see one has any redress about the price obtained
Jimmy
a small correction to your last comment
If you do not have insurance cover of your own for your lot (usually contents insurance which under strata insurance covers your lot) , then you are considered to be self insured. You would not be able to seek a recovery from the owners corp under this circumstance, though as you point out a claim under common law is possible.
Robert
Jimmy
i did not try to imply that the operator had an unreserved right to operate a drone.
CASA is trying to deal with drones and has come up with the rules that you sited.
RPAs under 2kg, though not requiring a complex licensing regime are restricted in where they can operate, as sited in your post.
Commercial operators can gain more freedoms in terms of where they can operate an RPA but must obtain more complex licences.
Many operators of RPAs have a commercial licence from CASA and hence are able to fly where Felixstowe saw them.
Anyone should be able to ask the RPA operator to identify themselves. From this information they can enquire of CASA whether the operator is licensed.
CASA is interested in the public reporting the conduct of RPA operators. It is one of the largest source of leads that leads to prosecution of rogue operators
Robert
I had a similar problem a few years ago.
A call to the landlord fixed it
Remember it is the landlord that pays the fine if the tenants will not. Let the landlord know that
BTW the tenants should have been issued with a copy of the By Laws. The standard rental contract in NSW specifies it must be provided. It is a condition of the rental agreement that the tenants observe the bylaws.
Robert
Hi Felix
sorry to say but it seems that you are a little pissed off with the people operating the drone.
I assume that the photographer is a commercial operator, and it his right to carry on such business (operating a drone for photography)
Also how often is this ocurring? If its very regularly ocurring perhaps it would cause some disturbance of your peace. But a once of?
There are lots of things that get up my nose in life, but I just have to lve with them
Robert
Deesee2304
What do you mean the property managers buy the LPG and then bill each lot for the usage. I think it would be a badly worded contract if it allows the property managers to make a profit on the sale of the LPG. Is that the case?
Secondly, if you can buy the LPG at such cheap rates, why do you not point this out to the property managers and ask them to buy from your source? See what their answer is but perhaps there is some cosy ‘deal’ ging on here between the property manager and the LPG supplier
Robert
From experience, it seems that anybody can put a caveat on your property.
However, you as the owner of the burdened property just go to the LPI and issue a lapsing notice. The other party then has 21 days to reply as to why they believe s caveat is justified. Usually they have to prove that they have an interest in the property. Just saying that you owe them money is not sufficient.
Looks like bluff to me
Robert
I am surprised someone has not answered this already.
The roof space is common property. If the upstairs occupants want insulation, they would need to raise a by law.
For the OC to install insulation, it would considered to be an enhancement of the property, which requires a special resolution to be passed.
Since a special resolution requires no vote to be cast against it, you have the power to oppose it. (Not so – see Item 3 below – JimmyT)
Now if the upstairs occupants want to raise a by law, include that they pay for the installation as well as maintains it.
Robert
Andyj
That the lot owner has no ABN, insurance or tools is not an impediment to accepting the work (The tools part may be some problem though)
Whether or not he considers this work, he is conducting a business with all the attendant risks (ie if he causes some damage, he is responsible for its rectification whether he has insurance or not)
It’s also a difficult situation as the committee may treat the owner as a ‘mate’ rather than as business. How are the rates to be set? What jobs does he have to do and when? How quickly does he fix the problems?
I would not discourage such a situation but would warn the OC that a ‘water tight’ agreement needs to be drawn up so everyone understands the lay of the land. That may be more effort than going to an open tender.
In regard to cash in hand. As an employer (yes that is what the OC is) the employer is required to withhold tax from payments. It does not need to withhold tax if an ABN is supplied.
I reiterate, its not out of the question, but care needs to be taken in drafting an agreement so that everyone knows whats expected.
Robert
I’m sure other more knowledgeable than me will correct me, but as I understand it , it is the OC responsibility
Having said that. If you are in a designated Local Government Area (LGA) . testing of any samples is free. I imagine you could just take a sample yourself and send it off.
Alternatively, for your sake of mind bite the bullet and spend $44 for a test. I used http://www.clearsafe.com.au and they gave a speedy response. Just need to fill out an online form , pay your money and send a small sample
Robert
In my humble opinion, all records of the OC are by law available for viewing by any authorised individual. So a search of the correspondence would (should) show Costas letter.
However, provided this us not a frivolous claim, and is supported by some evidence the EC should be mature and smart enough to not name names.
do you have good evidence, maybe photos or other proof that the target of your claim is actually the perpetrator?
And are you sure they are really breaching a bylaw, rather than just doing something that annoys you?
Robert