Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
SMO,
I totally agree with you (and the judge) about “must” and “must not”.
The problem is the Act doesn’t have any penalties for breach (as you have also pointed out previously).
The Act also doesn’t have a definition of “detailed”, so that is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Some ECs use that to manipulate.
Motion: To approve a certain project.
No design plans, no quotes, no costs. No details of the project.
But the agenda was “detailed” in that there was a separate motion to vote on.
When was your block built?
When was your strata scheme registered?
When was Foxtel invented?
What did the residents of your block do for entertainment between 1956 and the momentous invention of Foxtel?
The obvious answer to your question is that the owner of the unit in question has removed the original TV outlet or re-used it for the Foxtel connection.
Not the OC’s responsibility to re-instate.
I think this is a new question, not a response to something else.
And I think it’s about SPs registered pre-1974.
For SPs registered pre-1-July-1974, it is true that:
1) Balcony doors are owner’s responsibility, but owners must still obey the By-Law about “in keeping with the rest of the building”.
2) With an SP of that vintage, if one balcony door needs maintenance or replacement, they probably all do, and it’s “permissable” for the OC to resolve to fix them all at once at OC expense, assuming each unit has the same number of balcony doors.
3) Garage doors are common property.
For exclusive use By-Laws registered pre-1987, it is true that:
4) Maintenance became the exclusive user’s responsibility, by default, without that fact having to be stated in the exclusive use By-Law.
5) It would be “unfair” to apply the principle in (2) above if not all units have an exclusive use garage.
Thanks Scotty.
I knew there were different types of current valuations, e.g. for insurance (rebuilding) or for market sale, but I didn’t realise you could get an historic valuation.
@Aquarian said:
3. the four lots on the lowest level have unit entitlements of 11; the four on the next level up have UE of 12; the four on the third level have UE of 13 and the two on the top level have UE of 14. Unit entitlements total 200I think he meant the top level (penthouses) currently have a UE of 28 each, which came about as explained in point (7), otherwise the total wouldn’t be 200.
So the question is, is each penthouse twice the floor space of a lower unit, or did the building end up as some sort of stepped pyramid?
Floor space has to be a significant contributor to the “value” for UE purposes, perhaps the major contributor.
I’m not trying to do the valuer’s job here, but knowing this information might help Aquarian evaluate whether an application for a reallocation of UEs is worth pursuing.
Boronia is correct.
There is no need for a new aerial or wiring.
The OC’s responsibility ends at providing the signal to the TV wall plate.
The OC is not responsible for providing a set-top box, or a digital TV, or for setting those up, or for popping in to change channels, or for bringing viewers their slippers.
There is the possibility that, if the signal strength in your area is not great, you may need a new masthead amplifier, which goes on the communal aerial or up in the roof space, and is OC responsibility. That’s because with analogue, a low signal strength will manifest as a “snowy” picture, whilst with digital it will manifest as a “pixelated” picture, which is very hard to watch, or a “loss of signal” message.
But, if those of your residents already watching digital TV haven’t already complained about that, you’re probably OK.
Some other things you should know:
1) Most channels are broadcasting in SD (standard definition) rather than HD (high definition) anyway.
2) Set-top boxes (SD or HD) are very cheap.
3) But a LCD/LED digital TV is much better. A lot of the “clarity” associated with digital TV actually comes from a LCD/LED TV being able to directly use the digital signal to control its pixels, rather than by analoguely focussing an electron beam on fluorescent spots, as a CRT does.
Scotty,
Yes, that would seem unreasonable.
But what if there is no copy of the valuation of the lots at the time of registration, because the scheme is older than that requirement, or a chain of SMs have “lost” bits and pieces over time?
As you say, there would seem to be no way to reallocate UEs, even if the OC passed a special resolution or even a unanimous resolution.
How do you fix the problem? There’s another Curly Q for the Minister.
Curly Q2
An Owner submits a Motion in writing for the next GM, well in advance.
The Owner subsequently sells and by the next GM is no longer an Owner.
Is the OC still obliged to put the Motion on the Agenda?
Curly Q1
Which of these SSMA Schedule 3 “rights” takes precedence?
(1) The “right” of the EC to hold meetings in writing (by e-mail):
10 Voting in writing by members of executive committee
(1) A resolution is taken to have been validly passed even though the meeting at which the motion for the resolution was proposed to be submitted was not held if:
(a) notice was given in accordance with clause 6 of the intended meeting, and
(b) a copy of the motion for the resolution was served on each member of the executive committee, and
(c) the resolution was approved in writing by a majority of members of the executive committee.
(2) The “right” of owners to attend EC meetings:
14 Owners’ attendance at executive committee meetings
An owner or, where that person is a corporation, any company nominee of the corporation is entitled to attend a meeting of the executive committee but may not address the meeting unless authorised by resolution of the executive committee.
Further information to my previous post:
1) The “registration within 2 years” requirement was only added in the 1984 amendments.
2) The requirement that an exclusive use By-law must say whether the OC or the exclusive user is responsible for maintenance was only added in the 1987 amendments. Before that the exclusive user was responsible unless the By-Law said otherwise.
3) I can’t see when the unanimous resolution requirement was downgraded to special resolution, so I’d assume with 1996 revision.
Regarding CCB’s By-law, I would now suggest that:
a) The By-Law was validly made.
b) The By-Law was validly registered.
c) The exclusive users are responsible for maintenance.
d) But, the By-Law may be completely unfair because it “gave away” common property without compensation.
But then, I’m not a CTTT Adjudicator.
Not even a Mediator.
The 1973 Act makes interesting reading, if you’re not out fighting bushfires, or watching all-day sport on TV.
58 (3) An amendment of, addition to or repeal of the by-laws has no force or effect until the Registrar-General has, pursuant to a notification in the prescribed form lodged in his office by the body corporate, recorded the notification on the folio of the Register comprising the common property.
No mention of a 2 year time limit for registration.
58 (7) Without limiting the generality of any other provision of this section, a body corporate may, with the consent in writing of the proprietor of a lot, pursuant to a unanimous resolution make a by-law in respect of that lot conferring on that proprietor the exclusive use and enjoyment of, or special privileges in respect of, the common property or any part thereof upon such terms and conditions (including the proper maintaining and keeping in a state of good and serviceable repair of the common property or that part of the common property, as the case may be, and the payment of money by that proprietor to the body corporate) as may be specified in the by-law.
No need to dig out the Minutes from archive to check for payments for the granting of the exclusive use rights or the ongoing continuance thereof. If there were any, they should have been written into the By-Law. But you might like to check whether the Motion was unanimous, seeing as the word was omitted from the registration.
The clause above also explains the 2nd paragraph in your By-law, the one about conditions for repeal.
But wait, there’s more …
58 (9) (b) … is, unless excused by the by-law, responsible for the performance of the duty of the body corporate under section 68 (1) (b) (i) in respect of the common property, or the part of the common property, to which the by-law relates.
The current Act says an exclusive use By-Law must define whether the OC or the exclusive use owner is responsible for maintenance of the common property involved.
The Act under which your By-Law was made assigned responsibilty for maintenance of the common property involved by default to the exclusive use owner unless the By-Law said otherwise.
Any real lawyers care to comment?
CCB, what you haven’t told us is:
a) Did you check the original strata plan to see if the area was just “open space” or designated as visitor and/or resident parking?
b) What maintenance worth $50K is planned for what I’m assuming is about 200 sq.m. of open space?
Thank you. You’re a genius to locate that.
Don’t know anything about Strata Managers in the Newcastle area.
Gardening services do not usually include cleaning out the roof gutters, but check the scope of work in the contract.
If your villas are one storey, it’s not impossible for an owner or owners to get up on a ladder (not the roof) and clean them out. Just like a house.
But if I were 71, I don’t think I’d be doing it.
And I don’t think I’d be doing everyone’s gutters for free.
Get a contractor.
Again, it’s subjective.
And the interpretation is particular to each scheme.
I have heard of schemes which insist on every lot having the same style and colour of blinds.
But I haven’t ever heard of a scheme which insists on every lot having the same colour lounge just in case the the blinds are open and people can see in.
My conclusion would be that “visibility” stops at or near the blinds.
@gtchen said:
Thanks for the opinion. I guess I will hang them inside – don’t feel like going up the lift or spend my own $ buying cloth dryer & pay for electricity. I heard from my friends that they use a lot of electricity.Guess that steels my resolve to buy a house soon. Hang them where ever I like.
Probably not. Most councils require clothes lines to be in the back yard. Very similar rationale to not hanging them on your front balcony.
I’m on the top floor and our clothes lines are in the back yard. I would love to take the lift down to hang them out. But, seeing as we don’t have a lift, I just walk down three flights of stairs to do so.
Whose $ would you like to spend buying a clothes dryer?
The Vic Gov website says a clothes dryer costs about $1.90 per load @ $0.25/kWh. That might be an overestimate. I happen to be measuring my appliances’ electricity usage at the moment. Did a (light) load of drying for 1.7 kWh @ @0.25/kWh = $0.43.
Peta,
My apologies, obviously I was a bit hard.
You attended the AGM and are on the EC, so you’re doing the best you can.
It definitely sounds like a “dysfunctional” OC, so I agree with Scotty, CCB and Cobra. Go for a compulsory strata manager.
You have:
1) A deadlocked EC (with 6 members).
2) A failure by the EC to attend to essential repairs and possibly dangerous situations.
3) An EC which thinks it can subsequently veto an OC decision. Although they may argue that they have “allocated” the money for an expert report, just not spent it yet.