Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think the CTTT insists on mediation for everything except for the OC asking for a fine to be imposed for a breach of By-Laws (supported by a previous Notice To Comply). That’s what the Strata Living booklet flowchart says.
The tragedy of your situation is that common property with exclusive use rights is still common property and therefore the duty of the OC to maintain unless the exclusive use By-Law says otherwise, which it doesn’t. But that duty does not include improvements.
I would still try to have the By-Law struck out on any of the grounds previously mentioned and see what the CTTT says.
But let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.
The By-Law was made in 1975 and registered in 1979.
For 34 years, nobody complained.
You became an owner in 1994 and were aware at that time of the By-Law.
For 19 years, you didn’t complain.
Does anybody know if the CTTT has a “statute of limitations” on past strata wrongdoings?
Does anybody know if “sqatters rights” apply to strata common property?
JT has described the actions of the exclusive use owners as a “land grab”.
Isn’t what you’re contemplating now also a “land grab”, not for your exclusive use, but for everyone’s visitors?
As you say, it’s subjective.
In my subjective opinion, the screen you prefer would be “not in keeping with the rest of the building”.
But, there is another alternative. There’s a new appliance they’ve invented recently called a clothes dryer. Not particularly “green”, but your clothes come out soft and fluffy, and nobody “snow-drops” your intimate apparel, or sees the holes in your undies.
If your missus doesn’t want to make the arduous journey up 10 floors in a lift, perhaps you could consider one of those?
And it saves the cost of electricity to run the lift.
If all the owners feel the same as you, maybe the OC could install a solar PV array on the flat roof in place of the clothes line array, to defray the cost and carbon emissions of the electricity.
And don’t blame the lady downstairs. It’s never who you think it is.
I agree with Austman and PeterC:
1) The OC is not obliged to bring an old building up to current BCA standards.
2) But I can’t see any valid reason for refusing permission, as long as the lot owner pays.
3) The work should be done by a professional. Do you really want to electrocute yourself, or burn the whole building down a few months later?
Scotty,
a) How much did the roof void vacuuming cost?
b) Wouldn’t the sarking exercise be more costly than the batt insulation? To do it properly, they would have to remove all tiles, lay sarking, probably with all new battens, then replace tiles.
That’s s.58(7) of the 1973 Act you need to check, not the current Act.
That’s where the Mitchell Library comes in, the 1973 Strata Titles Act is not on the internet.
However, as your inspection report of 1994 mentions the problem, it would be reasonable to conclude that the 2-year registration deadline did apply even in those days.
I don’t think the concept of Special By-Laws arose before the 1996 changes.
Before then you simply repealed, amended or added By-Laws.
There was a previous discussion of Special By-Laws here:
http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/by-laws-and-outlaws/what-is-a-special-by-law/
and my head still hurts!
I think the conclusion was that, since 1996, Schedule 1 or Model By-Laws would be called “By-Laws” and amended or added By-Laws specific to your Plan would be called “Special By-Laws”.
Of course this gave rise to the the ridiculous situation where you would repeal By-Law X and replace it by Special By-Law X.
And Plans who had registered their By-Laws before 1996, well, they were all just called By-Laws, not Special By-Laws, even though they were “special”.
Another fine mess you’ve got us into Ollie.
The “official print-out of the By-Law, made in 1975” that you refer to should be an LPI dealing form titled “Notification of Change of By-Laws” and the words “resolution duly passed” are pre-printed on it. However, immediately before that there is a dotted space where you are supposed to insert the type of resolution, ordinary, special or unanimous. One wonders why this wasn’t also pre-printed on that standard form if the 1973 Act required a certain type of resolution? I also have a faded recollection that the requirement in those days was “unanimous”.
Anyway, I digress.
You should probably inspect the minutes of the GM which passed the By-Law, to see whether the beneficiaries were required to pay for their exclusive use right. That would only be in the minutes, not on the LPI dealing. But your SM has probably archived them and will want you to pay for retrieval.
Scotty is right about “like for like”, but I think everyone is forgetting:
52 How does an owners corporation make, amend or repeal by-laws conferring certain rights or privileges?
(1) An owners corporation may make, amend or repeal a by-law to which this Division applies, but only:
(a) with the written consent of the owner or owners of the lot or lots concerned and, in the case of a strata leasehold scheme, the lessor of the scheme, and
(b) in accordance with a special resolution.
The By-Law quoted gave exclusive use, so in theory you need a special resolution plus written consent from all 10 beneficial owners to repeal it. Legally, that doesn’t mean “unanimous” but statistically it probably does. What owner wants to give up something he got for free, and there’s 10 of them, which also means the special resolution wouldn’t pass. So, going to the CTTT to have the 2nd paragraph of the By-Law struck out (as contrary to the Act) wouldn’t get you anywhere.
However, the By-Law sounds unfair if the 10 beneficiaries paid the OC nothing for the exclusive use right and also if their unit entitlements weren’t increased to cover maintenance costs.
I would:
1) Check the Strata Plan to see if these parking spaces were designated visitor spaces on the DA. If they were, go to the CTTT to have the By-Law invalidated on those grounds.
2) Go to the Mitchell Library and look up the 1973 Act as printed at the time. See whether the 2-year registration period applied. I’m not sure whether it did. If it did, apply to the CTTT to have the By-Law invalidated on those grounds.
3) If the 10 beneficiaries paid nothing for the exclusive use right, apply to the CTTT to have the By-Law invalidated on the grounds of unfairness (or fraud on a majority?).
4) Depending on whether your scheme’s unit entitlements reflect the larger floor space of lots with garages vs lots without garages, apply to the CTTT for a re-allocation of unit entitlements now that some lots have “grown” a parking space.
Most cleaners I’ve come across also offer to replace blown light bulbs, for a small additional fee plus cost of goods.
They’re regularly at the premises, so no call-out charge.
I think this is a very loaded question.
And I’m not really sure what the complaint is.
If you have a triad of office bearers, it’s because the AGM, to which you were invited, decided by a majority vote to have a triad. Did you attend? Did you nominate yourself for a position?
It’s the EC’s duty to write the agenda for meetings, and it must include any motions which they (or you) have submitted beforehand.
It’s normal meeting procedure for the submitter of a motion to move it, and speak for it.
It’s the EC’s duty to write the minutes. If you disagree with what’s written, you can (speak and) vote against them at the next meeting.
All decisions are carried by a “block” of at least 50% of votes, so maybe the majority just thought the motions were a good idea or gave proxies to people they thought were doing a good job.
How about giving us a few examples of the decisions which were not in “the best interests of the owners”?
Struggler,
Sorry to read the news, your advice will be sorely missed.
If you wake up from your undisturbed night’s sleep missing strata just a little, here are some things you could do to cheer yourself up:
1) When you pay your home insurance premium, send an extra 25% to some nearby strata managers’ retirement home.
2) Draw up some By-Laws for your wife and kids, then throw them (the By-Laws, not the wife and kids) in the bin, they ain’t even gonna read them.
3) Anonymously pay your profligate neighbour’s water usage bill.
4) When you renovate your bathroom, only re-tile the three interior walls, leave the old tiles on the boundary wall and floor as a reminder of your days in the gulag.
5) Skip your golf game, stay home and do your own WH&S inspection, asbestos report or 10-year plan, plenty to choose from.
Nobzy and Gurus,
There seems to be some variation in the advice available on the web.
The LPI common property memorandum:
makes no distinction based on whether the smoke detectors were installed or not at the time of registration of the strata scheme.
The only distinction seems to be whether the smoke alarm is hard-wired to the building’s fire safety board.
The LPI CP memorandum does not necessarily applies to your SP, but it is a useful reference.
This web site makes most sense to me in terms of a rational assignment of responsibility:
https://www.stratachoice.com.au/blog/news/whoisresponsibletorepairorreplacesmokesensorsdetectors
There are three classes of smoke alarm connection:
1) Standalone (operates on battery) = Lot Owner’s responsibility.
2) Hard-wired to Lot’s electricity (but has a backup battery) = Lot Owner’s responsibility.
3) Hard-wired to building’s fire safety board (but has a long-life, possibly rechargable battery) = OC responsibility.
The reason it makes sense is that a smoke alarm screwed to the ceiling is no more likely to be common property than a light fitting screwed to the ceiling or kitchen cupboards screwed to the wall. All are Owner’s fixtures and fittings.
Regardless, a landlord is required to supply (and fit?) a new battery in each smoke alarm in their premises at the start of each lease. If you have a Property Manager that should be one of their delegated responsibilities.
$100 for a professional annual inspection doesn’t sound too expensive to me considering that it covers all smoke alarms in your residence, testing not only with the “test” button but by blowing canned ionised smoke at them, and free replacement of faulty or expired alarms, as advertised (but not necessarily endorsed) here:
https://www.smokealarmsaustralia.com.au/faq
Note: Ionisation smoke alarms only have a useful life of 10 years because the radioactive element decays (or half-decays) over time.
$30K for a large (100+ lots) scheme = $300 per lot (or less).
One wonders why the benefit of a regulated limit was bestowed only on large schemes, rather than being regulated as $300 per lot for all schemes.
One also wonders why “legal advice” (much more likely to blow out than tradesmen’s charges) was exempted from the general limit up to $1,000 per lot.
Scotty,
I can’t see the phrase “at the commencement of the meeting” anywhere in the Act (for “non-large” strata schemes), only “at or before the meeting”, so I interpret it literally.
Although many SMs state it your way for their own convenience.
Your argument makes sense in one respect – it’s no good keeping a proxy in your back pocket if it means the meeting will be adjourned due to lack of quorum.
But if a meeting is adjourned due to lack of quorum, surely the first thing the Chairman does on re-convening is to re-count the voters+proxies so he knows whether he can start the meeting or has to wait half an hour.
And the whole purpose of adjourning the meeting was to obtain a quorum, so why not accept new proxies as well as new voters?
Lefty, thanks for your open and prompt answers to all questions.
I now agree with Whale that, for your case, the OC should meet the excess.
And, I never could see any difference in functionality between ceramic tiles and glass splashback.
Having said that, I did like the clause KP quoted from the QLD Act. It changes the onus from the OC having to prove negligence inside a Lot to reject a claim to having to recognise an Act of God to approve a claim.
I also fervently hope that the changes to the NSW Act will classify all floor and wall coverings, including tiles (and splashbacks), as proprietor’s fixtures and fittings. In my opinion, this would have many benefits, especially for renovations.
Anyone agree?
I had previously formed the opinion that JGOWI must have some sort of legal background, and this discussion confirms it for me.
I can see the legal argument that an adjourned meeting is not a new meeting, something I was unaware of previously.
However, one twist.
For a “small” strata scheme (100 or fewer Lots), proxies may be submitted “at or before the meeting”.
Sorry to be the only dissenting voice, but I think the answer is “it depends”.
Some strata insurance policies (e.g. your sponsor’s) cover “proprietors fittings and fixtures” in addition to common property.
So, in general terms, just because there is a claim on the strata insurance policy, doesn’t always mean it’s the OC’s responsibilty and cost (excess).
In this case, because the splashback was an original hard surface attachment to a common property wall, I think it is the OC’s responsibility, but not necessarily cost.
Some strata schemes (e.g. ours) have a By-Law concerning common property which amounts to “you break it, you pay for it”.
So the question arises, how did the splashback break?
Was there a minor earthquake which stressed it to break?
Or did the cook accidentally hit with a heavy-base saucepan?
If of the latter nature, why shouldn’t the Lot Owner pay the excess and just be grateful that the OC’s insurance has covered the majority of the cost?
@OverIt said:
It happens that 2 x invest properties happen to be with the same strata company, with the same strata manager, this strata manager stuffed up big time on one of my investments that we moved to a new company. The problem is he still managers my other investment property, although I spoke to the principle, the principle refuses liability and refuses to remove this clown off my investment. In the mean time we are having all sorts of problems getting a response, getting things fixed, the principle won’t respond either, the EC are being difficult as well.The SM company is appointed by the OC and works for them not you.
The SM company assigns one of their SM persons to manage your Plan.
It sounds like your EC are currently happy with the SM company and the SM person they have been assigned.
You could, as JT suggested, speak to your EC and inform them of the bad experience you’ve had with that particular SM person managing another property of yours, and if they are swayed, the EC could discuss the matter with the SM principal.
Or you could, as Whale suggested, put a Motion on the Agenda for the next GM to change SM companies to the “good” one you know about.
There is no “conflict of interest”.