Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Jimmy, [please delete previous post, as I mucked up the format].
I started reading (and contributing to) your Flat-Chat web site after reading your submissions to the Strata Review and thinking how insightful they were, particularly the one about putting the rights of the many ahead of the rights of the individual.
However, I stopped contributing in December after you stomped on, rather than just disagreed with, a couple of my contributions.
I think you’ve just done the same thing to Daphne’s recent contribution.
She may have done the wrong thing by resurrecting a year-old corpse instead of starting a new thread, but she hasn’t yet received an answer to her question, and I think you should allow threads to run until they die a natural death.
Particularly so, as your closing argument could be read to imply that special resolutions, rather than just special By-Laws, need to be registered with the Dept of Lands. That post will be around on the interweb forever.
In my opinion, the answer to Daphne’s question is:
1) Owners are not required to keep a copy of the OC’s permission to attach something to common property.
2) They are stupid if they don’t, but a lot of people are stupid.
3) Permission (to attach something to common property) can only be granted by special resolution of the OC.
4) Therefore it will be documented in the minutes.
5) OCs (and therefore SMs) are only required to keep agendas and minutes for 5 years.
6) This is a deficiency in the Act which the Gov has no intention of addressing.
7) However, a good OC or SM will keep them for the life on the scheme, but they may be “archived”.
8) You may have to pay the SM for retrieval from archive, or for your time on their premises searching through the retrieved archives.
9) If they are charging you regular “archive storage fees” but have actually destroyed the records, then they are committing fraud.
10) Not all “exclusive use rights” require a By-Law, particularly if the “exclusive use” is guaranteed by being inside a lot and the OC is prepared to maintain the attachment.
11) That’s why she wants to troll though the minutes.
Publish none, part or all if you like.
Your web site has really enabled me to clarify my thoughts on strata issues, and I was about to write a couple of posts (essays really) on two of the most troublesome notions which are frequently championed on your site, even by the gurus.
But, it’s your web site. If you want it to be a place where the same old stock answers are given to the same old stock questions asked by every newbie, rather than a discussion forum, then I won’t bother.
Having consumed sufficient of your home country’s chief export, I shall now retire to bed.
Wirihana: Don’t ring the victory bells too soon, don’t count your chickens before they hatch, etc.
Whale: I think you’ve overlooked clause B(1) of the By-Law.
… shall not keep nor cause nor permit the keeping of any animal (except a cat, a small dog, a small caged bird or fish kept in a secure aquarium) within a lot or the common property.
Clause B(2) merely defines the responsibilities of the owner if an animal allowed by clause B(1) is kept.
Promising to comply with clause B(2) won’t wash if Wirihana is already in breach of the pre-eminent clause B(1).
Also, the By-Law provided by Wirihana does not contain the “without the approval in writing of the owners corporation” clause. It’s no use asking for approval. Neither the EC nor the OC has the power to give it.
Neither does the By-Law contain the “not unreasonably withhold its approval” clause. I disagree that:
It’s a well accepted principle that a Plan’s (Special) By-Laws cannot be harsh or oppressive, and that any relating to the keeping of animals cannot unreasonably withhold consent.
In fact, I understand that the CCCT/NCAT will not hear a dispute based on “unreasonable refusal” unless the By-law does contain that clause.
That particular version of a Pets By-Law, which has been around for 10 or 20 years now, was the first attempt by “strata” to be pet-friendly. The Government caused the problem by being “ridiculously unprescriptive” and legislating “small dog” without defining what “small” meant. That phrase is still in the (current) model By-Laws.
However, that By-Law does sound dated, and I’m told that community feeling has moved on in 2 respects:
1) That large dogs are no more of a problem than small dogs.
2) That having to carry your pet while on common property is impracticable.
Wirihana again:
It never ceases to amaze me how diligent people are in searching for a loophole in the letter of a By-Law and how undiligent they are in complying with the spirit of the By-Law.
It is obvious that the owners don’t (or didn’t at the time) want large dogs around.
The By-Law is not one of the model By-Laws, so it cannot have been passed by default. It was specifically voted for by 75%+ of the owners. How many of them do you want to offend?
Having said all the above, you do have “rights”:
a) If you are the owner, you have the right to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
b) If you are visiting the owner, you have the right to lobby the owner to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
c) If you are visiting a tenant, you have the right to lobby the tenant to lobby the owner to submit a better By-Law for special resolution at the next GM.
d) You have the right to leave your dog at your country residence if there is someone else there to look after it.
And now everyone can see why some schemes ban pets completely.
Because of creeping precedents.
There’s a communal pond with fish in it, so I can have a cat.
If I can have one cat, then I can have two cats.
And I can run a revolving door of foster cats, with no references as to their previous good behaviour.
Having read this story, I believe that “not wanting to create a precedent” is a justifiable reason and not “unreasonable”.
Congratulations on all the stress and work you have caused your EC.
In view of the precedent you have created, maybe soon one of your neighbours will bring (without permission) a big cat-eating dog into the scheme.
@kiwipaul said:
I’ve spent about half my life living in a townhouse (terrace house) in the UK which was effectively a freehold (same as Torrens in NSW) and so I know the advantages and disadvantages.…
Townhouses don’t need the strata overhead which they have been lumbered with IMHO and I strongly suspect it is because investors like strata because it removes the need to maintain the property from them and dumps it onto the Strata.
I wondered how other countries do it.
And I totally agree with you about terraces/townhouses.
They should be taken out of strata title and put back on Torrens Title with covenants or easements concerning common walls.
A comprehensive review of the Strata Act would have differentiated between types of scheme. Therefore this is not a comprehensive review.
@JimmyT said:
Your best if not only hope is for you and your neighbours to present a united front at the CTTT.There are some things about this story which are not clear and I suspect that the problem may be that meganpepi and the neighbours cannot present a united front.
1) Who had the altercation with the neighbours, you or the SM?
2) Is the boundary fence between your lot and your neighbour’s lot, or is it between your scheme and another neighbour?
3) Who applied to the CTTT to have a statutory SM appointed, you, your neighbours or the SM?
@meganpepi said:
Also removing strata management appears hopeless when the other owners will not agree to it.Sounds like the neighbour is happy with the SM.
@Dudley said:
Both invoices were addressed to me.Not sure exactly what you mean by “addressed”.
It’s always best to get the invoices made out to the strata plan, even if the tradesman gives/posts them to you personally to organise payment.
That way you’ll never be personally liable.
Legally, it’s probably only required if your SP is registered for GST, which 4 lots probably isn’t.
Could be just a tightening of their control procedures.
But amazing how much longer it can take SMs to pay invoices when you organise it yourself and don’t use their approved tradesmen.
Austman,
I’m not familiar with Vic and ACT laws.
But if you look at NSW doors, the sliding pane is always on the inside of the centre line, and the fixed pane is always on the outside of the centre line.
That’s if you want to get that pedantic.
In my experience, sliding doors get misaligned (and fail to lock) for two reasons:
1) The rollers are worn (or flat) and should be replaced. Cost $100-$200.
2) The whole building has become infinitesimally trapezoidal due to subsidence. This might be fixable by adjustment of the roller height. Cost $100-$200.
@newlsie said:
Thanks, But what if the owners want to do this – to be fair to each other as the ground floor flat is exactly the same size and cost as the top floor. Can they vote to create a by law to do this?What is fairer than following the rules that were in place and known by each Owner when they bought their strata property – that the cost of common property repairs would be shared according to UEs?
Extra questions:
1) How much variation is there in UEs given that “all lots are identical in size”?
2) Does every lot have an “east window” or is this a staggered installation?
3) If the installation is staggered, then any special levy could be staggered. All lots could pay their UE-based share for the “east windows”, next quarter all lots could pay their UE-based share for the “west windows”. This would actually spread the financial burden over time better than each lot paying for their own windows in full when they get them.
OH&S = Occupational Health & Safety, not Owners Health & Safety.
The OH&S Act was replaced by the WH&S Act from 1 January 2012.
WH&S = Work Health & Safety.
Neither Act applied/applies to purely residential strata schemes.
That is not to say that OH&S principles are not good guidelines for residential strata schemes.
OverIt, you [haven’t given] enough information to enable a considered answer.
How about telling us:
1) Was this same gate there when you bought the property?
2) Did your disability arise before or after you bought the property?
3) Is there anything defective about the gate other than that a person with a mobility issue finds it heavy and awkward?
4) What does “swing arm 900mm shy of the width of a single drive, steel reinforced frame” mean?
5) What reason did the OC (or other Owners) give for refusing your offer to pay to have the gate changed?
Did you get written permission for that bear?
How many bottles will it take to shampoo him?
@Cagey said:
We have had 2 cages put up in a garage of 27 alotted car spaces, I don’t want one either side of my car space as I couldn’t open either side door if it happened, what can I do.Are the “alotted car spaces” part of the Lot or exclusive use common property?
If the purpose of the cages is for storage of goods, it already sounds like an inappropriate use.
@eddie said:
I don’t know amount of time & effort spent but isn’t that what I pay a strata, building & property manager to do?What you haven’t told us is:
1) How many Lots in your scheme?
2) What proportion of your annual budget does $6.6K represent?
3) How many past years does this honorarium cover? Just last year, or many years of tireless voluntary effort?
You seem a little unclear on the roles of various managers and the EC.
The Strata Manager (SM) is largely administrative. Calling meetings, minuting meetings, issuing levy notices, collecting levies, receiving bills, paying bills, answer correspondence, etc. Some (most?) of them never even visit your building.
Only larger schemes will have a Building Manager (BM), because smaller ones just can’t afford them. Their role is to fix things, either personally, or by arranging a tradesman, and to organise and supervise scheduled maintenance such as painting.
I don’t understand the inclusion of a Property Manager (PM). That term is usually reserved for the “Leasing Agent” of a landlord, and so deals only with the Lot.
But, there are some things that simply cannot be delegated to the SM or the BM, and they are:
1) The Owner’s taste. Suppose you want a boundary fence erected. If you delegate that “bare” requirement to the SM/BM, you will get their taste, or the tradesman’s taste. Someone from the EC/OC must specify the requirements. How much of the boundary? What material (barbed wire, brick/stone, brushwood, flat metal, tubular metal, height, colour, etc.)?
2) The “noticing” of things which need fixing, and communicating with the SM/BM about them.
3) If you don’t have a BM, the arranging of access so the work can be done, and the supervision of the work to ensure things go right and the OC gets “value for money”.
And that’s the sort of voluntary work your EC does for you.
Minister Roberts actually said:
While many schemes would be happy to allow pets, it is often the default rule that they be banned, and potential owners and tenants are not always in a strong position to see the by-laws changed.
SMO makes a valid point.
Mr Roberts used the word “banned” and that is not the current default.
The good news is that your reportage was correct.
But SMO’s real point was that if Mr Roberts only changes the default By-Law for new schemes, how does that help existing owners with existing situations.
Seeing as he’s changing the Act, could he not require all strata schemes to register (free of charge) a replacement By-Law concerning pets?
But, he’d better give everyone some better options.
Birds in particular like to have a companion. Why do the pro-forma options limit it to one bird? And why only one of each species? Why not one of each species? And some fish in an aquarium. At least fish is plural. But perhaps the size of the “secure aquarium” should be limited, lest the 5,000 gallon wall-to-wall aquarium break and cause problems for the downstairs unit.
And, shouldn’t “acceptable” animals be defined? What about reptiles (snakes), rodents (rats), and arachnids (spiders)? I’m planning on getting a donkey myself (personal use only).
And, if he wants By-Laws to reflect current community thinking, why not make it easier to change By-Laws by requiring only an ordinary resolution rather than a special resolution?
@Boronia said:
I don’t think the electricity authorities are too keen about unqualified people being in meter rooms, for safety reasons. There is also a security risk from mischievous interference with settings.Well, they’re not unhappy about it. They tell you how to do it, practically invite you to do it, here:
https://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/Our-network/Metering/Reading-your-own-meter.aspx
So reading your own meter would seem to be a right that all customers should have. Torrens Title owners have it.
Yes, there is a risk from mischievous (or criminal) interference, and that is why the meter box/room needs to be locked, Torrens or Strata Title.
The dilemma only occurs in Strata Title, where all resident’s meters may be in the same box/room.
Should non-EC owners be denied what others have as a right?
MrPinkCarpet should certainly be given a key. He is an EC member, and was supervising tiling and painting on the common property while the Chairman was away and wanted to turn the power off for safety. Sure, he could have called a licensed electrician to flip the switch off each work day and on again after work, but that would have been expensive.
BTW, a lot of cleaners already have master keys, because they like to turn the lights on in the daytime so they can see what they’re cleaning, or because they’re also responsible for replacing blown bulbs.
@Marvin said:
We had to get our strata manager to write an authorisation letter that we could give to the locksmith before we could get keys for the EC. Note that (in Sydney, at least) there are 2 types of keys – NMB and Abloy. NMB is the older type of key. Locksmith is able to provide these easily. I understand locksmiths can’t cut Abloy keys, and it’s a much bigger hassle to get these.That sounds a bit like the tail wagging the dog. The SM works for the EC/OC. I will assume that the locksmith asked for an authority with the Corporate Seal on it, and as the SM usually has custody of that, you had to go via the SM.
Locked meter cupboards or rooms work on a master key system, because meter readers and licensed electricians need access.
Marvin is correct about the two types: NMB and Abloy. My understanding is that NMB is the old system and all new installations must be Abloy and that there is only one installer in Sydney approved by Ausgrid, see here:
https://www.integritysecurity.com.au/services/em-system-information
EC members should also have access for emergencies.
But I don’t like the key cabinet idea.
If you have a control-freak, they will simply change the combination so that only they have access.
What are people’s opinions on whether all owners have a right to access the meter room whenever they like (to read their own meter in this era of rising electricity prices), or whether they should have to wake up an EC member to accompany them to do so, or whether they have no rights at all?