Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Long time, no contribution.
Yes, in my opinion this site has been giving wrong advice on the matter of unauthorised additions to common property for a long time.
Particularly the notion that an unauthorised addition to common property automatically becomes common property when lot ownership changes.
And the “why” is quite simple.
There is only one way under the SSMA 2015 that an addition to common property can be made … by special resolution under s.108(2).
If the OC has not made that resolution, the addition (or extension) is not common property.
Lady Penelope got it right.
Adrian Mueller got it right.
I too have had dealings with him and hold high regard for his opinions.
My advice is … Keep all minutes of general meetings from day dot, don’t allow them to be destroyed after the regulation period … that way you will have proof that no special resolution was made.
Sovereignty may not be exactly the right word.
Or maybe it is, encompassing the concepts of copyright and business “confidential” to which a Corporation is entitled, and their legal duty to protect the personal information of their members (Owners).
Maybe the real problem is that Larry has whacked up on the public interweb every last bit of strata information he could get his hands on without permission from the OC.
Maybe, having demonstrated his ability with web sites, Larry could work with the OC to act as their webmaster, but employing at least 3 levels of access security:
1) Public
2) Residents
3) Owners
Should I really be able to find out that van BD-96-LH is owned by Mr Kypreos?
Should criminals really be able to find out that the Westbourne Tower has security issues with the foyer?
Should tenderers really be able to find out in advance how much the OC might be expecting to pay for certain work?
Anyway, the (currently) publicly available facts are:
It was agreed to accept the quote from Mueller’s to draft a bylaw to ensure the privacy of the scheme’s information and protect it from illegal re-publication – it is intended that this by-law be placed on the 2014 AGM agenda for owners to vote on.
Note: during this motion L Vincent , being the person responsible for re-publishing Owner’s Corp information on Facebook ,interrupted the meeting and argued against the necessity of this By Law.
Some discussion took place as to the importance of protecting individual Owners Information, along with Owner’s Corp information as a whole, from being made available to the millions of Facebook users who had neither right to nor any natural interest in having access to the Schemes confidential information. The Chairman put this motion to a formal vote, and the Committee unanimously voted in favour of the motion.
Anyways, off to get a haircut now.
Now I’m confused.
@mailbox said:
The 1973 Strata Titles Act started on July 1st., 1974. Strata Plans registered before this date fall under old 1961 act, whereby the common property extends to the outside balcony “wall”, which makes individual owners responsible for repair/maintenance/replacement of a.o. balcony sliding doors.
My understanding was:
whereby the lot property extends to the centre-line of the outside balcony “wall” (=upstand).
Meaning of course that the doors you walk through to get on to the balcony are lot property.
I don’t know that I’d spend money on lawyers over this issue.
My understanding is that there is no provision in the Act which would allow manual labour to be demanded from owners or residents, and a By-Law requiring free manual labour could be easily challenged, perhaps as “slavery”.
However, there is nothing to stop the OC offering “fair compensation” as an incentive to volunteers.
Your problem may be that $10 per week is not “fair compensation”.
When our local council changed over from individual bins to shared bins, strata blocks were allocated only 50% of the disposal volume per lot per week that free-standing houses were given for the same annual charge, but the offset was that the garbos would come onto the property, drag the bins out to the street and back in again after emptying.
No insurance issues whatever.
That offset does allow me to calculate (from my current rates notice) the “value” that our Council assigns to bin dragging and returning.
And the answer is $3.63 per bin per collection.
Dech, why don’t you tell us how many bins your block has, how often they are emptied and then calculate an appropriate weekly value.
That price does not include washing out and sanitising bins, but that is a service which is available from commercial operators for about $6-$8 per bin per occasion (which doesn’t have to be after every emptying).
@JimmyT said:
Unless you can prove it was the current owner who removed it, the liability falls back on the Owners Corp (as it should, for failure to inspect and maintain common property fire safety installations).
I use the Sherlock Holmes level of “proof”. The door closer is inside the unit. Therefore it was the current owner, a previous owner, the current tenant or a previous tenant who broke or removed the door closer.
It may be (is) the OC’s legal responsibility to get it replaced, but it’s the current owner’s responsibility to pay for it. If he/she can get it back from a tenant, then that’s up to them.
I’m still not sure where this concept of “Caveat OC” rather than “Caveat Emptor” came from. The OC is not a party to the contract of sale for a unit changing hands, so why should damaged common property inside a unit suddenly change status upon sale? The answer is it doesn’t.
Hmmm, an uncle or a daughter.
Make them present their credentials to the OC.
Cosmo:
1) I think Jef’s issue was overinsurance not underinsurance.
2) The “underinsurance clause” you describe applies only for a partial loss, not a total loss. For a total loss, Insurers will pay up to the Sum Insured. And why wouldn’t they, you paid the premium for that amount.
Jef:
Your best bet is to get the facts … a copy of the valuation letter and a copy of the insurance renewal … from the SM.
Certified Valuers know the Strata Act requirements (s.82 of the Act and s.12 of the Regulations) and usually state the values in that manner.
1) Building replacement, X.
2) Removal of debris, currently about 14% of X.
3) Professional fees, currently about 11% of X.
4) Subtotal, X * 1.25
5) 24-month uplift, currently about 10% of subtotal.
6) Total Valuation, X * 1.375.
For (5), the Regulations only require an 18-month uplift, but I think someone is assuming (probably rightfully) that the valuation will be obtained (on average) 6 months before renewal, or that your building will burn down (on average) 6 months into the period of cover.
It sounds to me like your OC wanted to cover both of those assumptions, in which case the Sum Insured of $9,660K would be (cautious or) reasonable.
The SM does not have the right to increase the amount above what the OC instructs them.
But remember that Insurers also include other benefits in their policies, like Catastrophe insurance (e.g. Canberra bushfires, labour and materials had to be brought in from interstate at increased cost).
Maybe someone is (wrongly) adding that to Sum Insured.
Daphne,
I have forgotten your details. Could you please refresh my memory:
1) What year was your scheme registered?
2) How many years have you lived there?
3) Are you on the EC, or get on well with them, or at loggerheads with them?
It is often better to join the EC (if “allowed”), work from within, lead by example, instead of creating a confrontation. This note, and others of yours, sounds like you are stockpiling arms and ammunition for a hostile takeover.
How do you know your scheme has a By-Law requiring a notice board if you don’t already have a copy of the By-Laws?
As far as I know, you don’t just ask the LPI for a copy of your By-Laws. First you ask for a Plan Image ($12.15 from their online shop). Then you go through the Dealings listed on that and you ask for a copy of each dealing ($12.15 each), and from memory you don’t know until after you’ve paid your money whether the dealing was a Change of By-Laws or not.
Fire Safety Certificates and Annual Fire Safety Statements are only necessary for buildings constructed after the BCA came into effect in 1992, or buildings which have subsequently come to the attention of the Council or the Fire Brigade.
https://www.survivalsolutions.com.au/files/Resource/25_afss-&-cert.pdf
Unless you’re seriously concerned about your fire risk, I would think long and hard about getting the Council involved. As JT said, once they are involved, they can demand the whole box and dice, and that won’t endear you to other owners. It would probably be best to suggest the OC obtain a fire risk assessment from an independent fire safety company.
I don’t think whether your courtyard is common property or lot property is a matter for debate. Get hold of the Strata Plan (the diagram). Thick lines delineate lot property. Simple as that.
And if it’s common property, do you have any By-Laws which grant exclusive use?
pmayes
Another question for you … is your tenant a recent tenant who has been complaining about this since he first moved in … or did the vehicle suddenly appear in his parking space well into his tenancy?
If the former, is it at all possible that the vehicle belongs to your previous tenant who decided it wasn’t worth his while taking it with him?
JimmyT
All that pmayes has said so far is that “strata won’t touch it”, and I assumed by “it” he meant the vehicle. No reason has been stated to us for this position, and it is so far just another assumption that this means that they have “washed their hands of it” (meaning the whole matter). I can think of at least one scenario (as above) why this may be the case.
I think this case also highlights one dilemma of strata … if the parking space is common property, the OC has a legal duty to remove the vehicle … but they have no legal right to do so … and the Government has no intention of resolving the dilemma.
That means that OCs have an unenviable choice: comply with the first law by breaking the second, or break the first law by complying with the second.
As all EC/OC decisions have to be minuted, perhaps all the EC/OC means is that they would prefer that the tooth fairy attends to the matter overnight without any paper trail leading to them.
I’m still waiting for pmayes to tell us whether the parking space is common property (perhaps with exclusive use rights) or lot property.
And perhaps what vehicle it is.
There’s a big difference between food rotting in the refrigerator and say a 1970’s Ford Falcon GTHO worth over $100K and well worth covering with a tarpaulin.
Boronia is correct – the police cannot tell you the owner from the rego number (if there’s still a sticker on the window) or the VIN or the engine number. Privacy, you know.
And what does dragging the vehicle on to CP achieve? Just displaces the problem.
One element of democracy is that whatever “rights” you claim for yourself (such as the “right” to dump some unwanted object from your property onto someone else’s), those “rights” are granted to everyone. You couldn’t complain if the vehicle was dragged right back where it was observed to come from.
As the vehicle is more likely to belong to a resident than an owner (50% of residents are tenants), it would be more effective to put a notice in letterboxes or under doors than to write to owners, who may live say 100km away from their investment property. And the complainant can do that without EC/SM involvement.
I’m also sick of volunteer ECs being disparaged. Sure there are some cowboys out there, but the majority are doing a a reasonably good job of meeting their responsibilities under the Act, plus helping their neighbours (not a responsibility under the Act) for completely unselfish reasons. The selfish people are actually the owners who never volunteer for the EC, never attend meetings, and expect someone else to handle all the dramas.
Now I would like the pro-draggers to imagine they’re actually on an EC and suggest a solution for when the vehicle is dragged on to common property.
daphne diaphanous said
I think that little problem should be shared by all in your SP.Why?
You are obviously not on the (volunteer) EC of your SP.
However, the SM should be assisting pmayes to find out who owns the vehicle by writing to all owners.
Note – I am assuming the parking space is lot property.
If it’s CP with exclusive use rights, then that’s different.
If it’s just plain CP, then that is different again.
Gotta go … I have to drag my bag of garbage out to the landing, share it with all in my SP, you know … and let someone else take it to the garbage bin.
I think this topic just goes to show that if you only tell us half the story, or mis-describe the situation, you won’t get appropriate advice.
@pmayes said:
… and is covered in a tarpaulin. I suspect it belongs to one of the other units.If it’s covered in a tarpaulin, it is valuable to somebody. It is not abandoned, it is stored. At a guess, yes, one of the other units in your scheme. And, depending on what it is, it could be very valuable.
I would make a determined effort (and record the details) to ascertain who the owner is. A sign on the vehicle, a letter under the door of each unit, etc.
You may (after a suitable period of notice) have the right to move the vehicle (to a legal parking spot), but I would strongly suggest you do not dispose of it.
You have a property manager, and that person is not doing what you’re paying them to do if they have leased your property when part of it is not available for occupation.
Wirihana,
It looks like your reinforcements arrived at the battlefield a day late.
Why not simply call another battle, as you seem to have enough (25%+) support to requisition an EGM.
There may have been a technical breach if the adjourned meeting was held only 6 days after the first.
Schedule 2 clause 12(4) of the Act says:
If a quorum, as provided by subclause (2), is not present within the next half-hour after the relevant motion or business arises for consideration at the meeting, the meeting stands adjourned for at least 7 days.
and clause 13(2)(b) says:
notice of that time and place must be served by the Secretary on the members of the owners corporation at least 1 day prior to the meeting.
But it would be quicker (as Scotty said) to call a new EGM than to lodge a complaint, maybe have the meeting invalidated, and what … be ordered to hold the meeting again?
I did read somewhere, maybe even in this forum, that it was “established law” that the adjourned meeting was a continuation of the original meeting not a new meeting, therefore proxies had to be delivered (for a large scheme) 24 hours before the original meeting.
But law is not (necessarily) justice, and I agree with your logical deductions. A person who attends the original meeting but cannot attend the adjournment is disenfranchised by not being allowed to submit a proxy. And the only way to prevent that is to give a proxy for the original meeting and to override it by turning up and voting personally.
Anyway, after the Gov’s proposed changes, you’ll probably never hear of an adjournment again.
And, don’t hate the Chairman. As Jimmy said, he may have been “nit-pickingly precise”, but if he hadn’t been, someone else could have lodged a complaint, and it (probably) would have been upheld.
Also, the EC can resolve to issue a NTC, so your Chairman was considerate in calling an EGM to obtain a wider view.
You also said:
I also submitted a general meeting agenda item to change the existing by-law, stating that it is unreasonable and unworkable and that it should be replaced with the standard by-law option A.
Lucky that didn’t pass! Option A allows only fish. And don’t ask for option B either, because for dogs it only allows those of the “small” persuasion.
Write your own.
Don’t forget that there are many older people living in strata.
How about the old “Suggestion Box” in the foyer, but don’t call it that, or you know what sort of suggestions you’ll get. What about “Maintenance Requests”.
And a “Do Not Disturb” sign for the Caretakers door handle.