Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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
Hi Captn
i think you have hung yourself out to dry.
I assume that you inspected the property before you rented it. In that case you accepted to rent it in the condition it was presented.
in NSW the lease one signs does have a section where the tenant can note things that need to be rectified, and if the landlord agrees and signs, it forms part of the contract.
if you don’t have this noted, then the landlord has no obligation to fix things the way you want them. You could argue that you are improving the landlords property and do should be compensated. But that’s not how the rental laws are applied.
You can try and see if the landlord will agree to paying, but do not be surprised if they agree.
also be careful about any “improvements” you make. That tree you cut down could have some sentimental value to the landlord. He could hold back money from your bond because you altered his property without your permission.
As in all things strata and renting, seeking forgiveness in never preferable to seeking permission.
Robert
Dan3101
i believe that the incentive for lot owners to pass the SBL is that it validates their damaging common property. The remedy for damaging common property is that the lot owner has to restore the damage back to original.
now no lot owner is going to want to undo their Reno. Therefore they will vote for it.
i had a similar situation. In the notice of meeting sent with the motion (SBL) we explained the implications of voting for and against, including that owners would have to remove their additions if the SBL was not passed.
guess what the final vote was? Yes 100% in favour
Robert
Fire safety certificates are only required for certain types of residential buildings.
For example villa and townhouse complexes with proper fire segregation are exempt.
Firstly contact the local council. They should be able to tell you the building classifications ( according to the BCA) that require a certificate. Then consult the BCA and work out your buildings classification and if it is exempt or not.
We had a situation where the local council sent letters to every MDU in the municipality demanding fire certificates. Caused us a big panic considering the costs to comply.
A check as above found we were exempt.
When I called the council they said that their records do not show what the building classification is, and they sent letters to every MDU in the municipality.
A letter from the Strata to the council and we were off their list.
Robert
I have to disagree somewhat with kiwi Paul.
The OC insurance will not cover the damage to the door. The insurance company will try and recover the cost from the ” guilty” party.
Having said that, the ” guilty ” party is only liable for the damage they caused. It’s an accepted principle in the insurance industry that the payer ( in most cases the insurance company) will exclude the cost say where maintenance has not been carried out. In a normal case, the insurance company would send out their assessor who would make the call.
We had a case in our block, where a tenant reversed into a garage door. Their car insurance covered the ( replacement) of the door.
In a word -NO
Seriously, your rent is below the area average
$10 increase is just 2.2%. We’ll below average rent increases in Sydney.
And you don’t want to sign a new lease because you don’t know whether you want to stay.
You have not considered moving. why not?
I hold an electrical contractors licence and have experience in building electics.
Firstly, the wring rules change every few years. However there is no requirement to upgrade a building to any newer rules than when the building was built. The only exception that I know of is the installtion of smoke alarms.
You mention an upgrade. The starta laws require the OC to maintain the building (and its fittings) in good order, but do not require the OC to do upgrades, unless regulated by some law. In this case that is not the case.
What has prompted this need then?
The next question is why have some lots had upgraded wiring? If the owner chose to upgrade the lot owners wirring, then it was always a lot owners cost. If the lot owner also upgraded the common property wiring , then they have broken the bylaw about damaging common property, unless they had a by law (I suspect not).
In the proposed upgrade, then the OC will pay only for the common property wiring. The lot owner wiring part has to be paid by the lot owner. I do not think there is any way to force an unwilling lot owner to do any upgrade (see my first paragraph).
Robert
daphne
i see a lot of posts from you. There is an old saying ” beware of what you wish for”. I think kangaroo made a similar point.
now that I have that off my chest (and please excuse my indulgence) I can provide some answer to your question regarding fire safety.
You already have found out the class of your building. The type of building you have is not subject to any fire codes. The reason is that the construction is such that fire cannot spread upwards to another dwelling, nor sideways (there are firewalls between dwellings).
you should be great full of this classification. Regardless of when your building was built, all buildings are required to comply with current fire safety rules. That means an upgrade and that is very expensive.
the building classification you have means you have minimum requirements i.e. none to meet.
Robert
Strata Plan of 4 by the beach
I manage my own unit like your self. Any conditions that I agree with the tenant are documented in the lease. It then becomes part of the contract.
I also inspect my property regularly. Any breaches of the conditions that have been AGREED with the tenant I pick up on.
if it’s such that i think it’s serious enough I will inform them that they have breached the lease and ask them to leave.
The hardest part about self managing (whether its a rental or the strata) is the separation of the personal from the business. It’s hard to tell someone who you have got to know to ‘get in line’. They often see it differently, and take it personally (more so than just a straight business arrangement)
Whilst I remain friendly with my tenants, i don’t EVER become part of their lives no matter how nice they appear
Robert
I can answer the question from both a professional (I am an electronic engineer) and a practical point of view
(The governmants digiatl TV website covers most of this in some detail)
Most strata rsidents by now are receiveing difgatal TV. If you can receive channels 72,73, 90, 99 etc then you are reeiving digital. (this sort of assumes that people have a digital receiver of some sort, but by now most people do) In this case there is no need to do anything when analog is switched off. This again is on the assumption that a common antenna is used for most units.
If you can’t receive any or some digital channels, it indicates that the signal at the lot is not sufficient. In this case it’s necessary to get an antenna expert in to diagnose the problem and upgrade.
There are antenna labelled digital ready, but the only real difference is that they are smaller than an analog antenna as they do not have to receive analog channels 2 and 0. the old analog antenna will wotk just fine on digital signals.
In my strata, we had poor reception on some digital channels even though we were in a high strength signal area. The antenna’s were 35 years old, so we replaced them (only) and the problem was solved. It was a few hundred dollars only.
Most older starta could do with a replacement of an old antenna, so we just chnaged out ours under maintenance.
Robert
I am involved in a legal case and have been researching mediation.
Its interesting reading.
In the court system, mediators are there to broker an agreeable solution between parties. Mediators are not legal experts and are not required to know the law. I reiterate, the mediator is brokering agreeable solution between the parties. The court ratifies the agreements and checks that they are within the law.
The mediators skill and role is to get parties talking and agreeing.
In any mediation session, you do not have to come to an agreement if you don’t want to. The next port of call is then the court where the head of the court will hear the facts of the case and make a determination based on the law.
Most lawyers will tell you that its better to get an agreement at mediation as it results in an ‘agreeable’ solution to all, rather than to go to the court or tribunal and get a strict legal ruling.
The courts use mediation in order to get faster and cheaper resolution to issues. You don’t have to agree to solve things at the mediation.
Robert
I am an electrical licence holder so i can help here.
The electrcial wiring rules (AS3000) do not require existing installtions to be upgraded if the only purpose is to repair the exisiting installation. It is considered that replacing light fittings is just a repair, so an earth wire in not required.
I suspect that your electrician is playing you for some more work and money. Find another electrician
Robert