Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
OK, I’ve had a few whiskies, so let’s get started.
JT …
“There was no ban on pets”, but there was a ban on pets “arriving” without written permission (in the form of a By-Law).
KEB …
I’m still not sure whether you want the dog to visit “occasionally” as stated in your original post, or to stay permanently, which is the impression I get from your later posts.
If there are 3 units, there are 3 members of the OC, not the 2 you state.
The EC may well be comprised of 2 members.
Permission has to come from the OC, not the landlord, not the SM, not the EC (unless the OC choose not to override their decision).
You have the landlord over a barrel with the extra clause written into the lease (but that’s not sufficient permission).
What about the 3rd owner? Have you talked to them?
Has the OC already held an EGM to decide to amend the By-Law, or is that still in the future? It may not pass.
You can’t be evicted by the landlord, because you haven’t breached the lease (with its extra clause).
You can’t be evicted by the OC. Ever.
The OC can take you to the CTTT for breaching a By-Law, either the old one requring permission, or the new one banning pets altogether.
Or you could take the OC to the CTTT, on the grounds of “unreasonable” refusal, or that they changed the By-Laws during your tenancy.
How long is your lease?
CCB …
Yes, that’s one disadvantage of being “pet friendly”. Give a Leasing Agent 2.54 cm, and they’ll take 1.609344 kilometres. As JT says elsewhere, they are “paragons” of something or other. I think “paragon” is a term for a geometric figure which has at least two faces.
Anyways, the Strata Review will probably solve all our problems. I understand they’re going to make pets compulsory. And they’ll probably ban smoking on balconies, so you’ll have to do it inside with the kids. Which will only leave one problem, pets who smoke, like that monkey on Big Bang.
PC, Thanks for the answers, K.
Hi PeterC,
While we’re waiting for ccbaxter to tell us about the information night, let me ask another question.
When the 60c gross feed in tariff expires at the end of 2016 will everyone who has that arrangement have to reconfigure their two meters back to one “net” meter or do the power companies intend to achieve this with software?
Otherwise, if somebody is supplying 3 KWh in the daytime (at 6c) and consuming 3KWh at night (at 25c) , they would still face a fairly hefty bill.
Thanks for the previous answers.
Hi PeterC,
Not sure whether your most recent comments were for me or for ccbaxter.
I was just trying to highlight some of the questions a decent EC would be answering in a thorough proposal.
But, ccbaxter’s comments about advertising material being sent to individual owners leads me to think that what is being proposed is not a communal system owned by the OC but each interested owner getting their own system on the OC’s roof.
Either way, a Special Resolution (75% or more) would be required.
My comment about inverters wasn’t so much about cost (as that would be included in the installation price) but about physical space to house them. If they’re individual systems, they would have to have individual inverters.
Not every scheme has a meter room. Our 12-lot 3-storey pitched-roof block has a meter cupboard. No room even for 12 more meters (if gross), let alone 12 inverters.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that for new installations in NSW there is no longer a “gross” feed in tariff or a “net” feed in tariff, just a feed in tariff. For which the going rate is $0.06 per KWh. Which means that anybody would be crazy to connect up their PV system in a “gross” fashion these days.
Like ccbaxter, our block had significant restoration work on the roof about 5 years ago. The original problem was bad workmanship during construction, but the multitude of attempts by tradesmen with hob-nailed boots to fix leaks finished the roof off, and we had to get a complete re-tile. We no longer allow tradesmen on the roof.
So I would have severe reservations about allowing (up to 36) tradesmen with hob-nailed boots installing PV systems by drilling through the tiles to affix rails. Especially as ccbaxter lives on the top floor.
I wonder what happened at the “information night”?
I’m assuming your building has a pitched roof and you’re talking about attic storage within all/part of the roof void.
You will also need to consider fire regulations.
If the top floor has multiple units, then the ceiling is usually fire-rated in some way, to prevent fire spreading from one unit to another, and you’re cutting a big hole in it.
Your attic, apart from having a floor so that you don’t put your foot through it, might have to have four walls and a new ceiling which are all fire-rated to the same standard as your present ceiling, just in case you have a fire in your unit whilst the ladder is down.
In principle I’m a supporter of solar power and a supporter of putting larger installations on fewer but larger roofs (eg factories, schools, strata, etc) rather than on each separate dwelling house.
But your EC does sound a bit gung-ho and disinclined to answer or discuss your concerns. And there certainly are issues to be answered.
1) The owners seem to be under the impression that they’ll each be getting their own system. That’s 36 inverters and 36 new meters. Got room to put them?
2) It would be more efficient for the OC to have one larger system (on the roof that they own) and to use the income to keep levies down. That’s only 1 inverter and 1 new meter.
3) But the ATO regards that as non-mutual income, which must be (nominally) allocated out to each lot, and each lot has to report that in their individual income tax returns rather than the OC reporing it in theirs. Does the SM know they’ll have to issue 36 group certificates? Do the 36 owners know they’ll have to include this income? Note, there has been a suggestion that the ATO change this ruling, but who knows if/when that will happen.
4) Do you have a flat (accessible) roof or a pitched roof? Installation and servicing on a 3-storey high pitched roof can be expensive.
5) Despite having no moving parts, the PV panels do need cleaning to maintain maximum output. Such things as mould growth, bird poo, wind blown debris and dirty rain can all affect performance. Again, difficult on a 3-storey high pitched roof.
6) Does the local council have any regulations concerning appearance or streetscape? I don’t know whether your council will require a DA to be lodged (+dollars) or whether PVs are now exempt or complying development.
PeterC, how big is your scheme that used to consume 6MWH/qtr? Sounds very big.
I think this post got lost as I didn’t see the “awaiting moderation” message.
I wouldn’t call it gobbledook, but in the wrong place even ordinary words like “owners” and “persons” (even “individual”) can create problems.
Sometimes I feel sorry for lawyers (but not often).
My own interpretation would be that Schedule 2 clause 12 (3) should be read in terms of “entitlements to vote”.
I’d be wary of going to the CTTT to have the motion overruled. They will often resolve things in terms of “would your vote have made a difference”.
a) If the OP had attended and voted against, the motion would have still have been carried on show of hands.
b) If the OP and the 4th owner had attended and voted against, the show of hands would have been a tie, and the poll would have carried the motion.
c) If there really wasn’t a quorum, the EGM would have been reconvened in 7 days, and either (a) or (b) would have happened then.
d) And if there wasn’t a quorum at the reconvened EGM, after 30 minutes Mr 58% would have become the quorum.
e) Or, he could have turned up to vote for his 1st unit, and brought his wife with a written proxy to vote for the 2nd unit.
Same result each time.
I think half this story is missing.
1) Why didn’t sancataldo (OP) and the 4th owner go to the EGM?
2) If the missing 42% of UEs is split half-half (assumption) between the OP and 4th owner, and the OP received a bill for $14,000 then the total special levy must be around $66,000.
3) What work worth $66,000 arose so “suddenly” in a 4-lot scheme?
4) Did the mandatory 10-year plan include this item?
5) What time period was allowed between the EGM resolution and the due date for payment?
6) What time period elapsed between the due date and the letter of demand?
7) Is Mr 58% the developer (original owner) of the scheme?
8) If so, see Schedule 2 clause 18 (3).
Also, Schedule 2 clause 18 (1) might shed some light on the interpretation of quorum raised by the OP.
Guys,
Nobody is saying an OC can’t use the same remedy for By-Law breaches against tenants as against owners, namely a Notice to Comply and/or application to the CTTT.
Nobody is denying that s44 of the Act applies equally to owners and tenants.
I pointed this situation out more than a week ago in the “Parking in a resident parking space” topic.
In fact, I pointed it out more than a year ago in the GAP survey for the Strata Review. Not that that got into the government’s proposals.
But you’re both missing two points:
1) Tenants don’t usually read the s44 of the Act, so are unaware of their obligation.
2) If the standard lease were modified to include a By-Law compliance clause (as in QLD), then the OC would have an extra avenue to ensure compliance – a By-Law breach would be a Breach of Lease, which could (eventually) lead to eviction.
KP, if my memory serves me correctly, in NSW a purchaser of a strata title property does not sign a legal document promising to comply with the By-Laws.
So, no threat of eviction for owners, ever.
That may explain why leases don’t have the compliance clause.
Can’t put more conditions on tenants than on owners, can we?
Ah, “unreasonably” and “occasionally”.
Words that are music to lawyers’ wallets.
First, get yourself a printed copy of the By-Laws and read them. Your landlord is obliged to provide it.
I think KEB only has three options:
1) Get rid of the dog and sue the landlord+agent for “loss of consortium” (well, same sort of concept without the sex) based on misrepresentation as evidenced by the written extra clause in the lease.
2) Move out and sue the landlord+agent for damages (moving costs) based on misrepresentation as evidenced by the written extra clause in the lease.
3) Write to the OC requesting permission to keep the dog on the lot. Assuming that the relevant By-Law for your scheme is not a “blanket ban” (you have indicated that it’s not), most By-Laws use the phrase “owner or occupier”, so tenants can apply, not just owners. The initial response will come from the EC or SM. If it is unfavourable, use the leverage of “misrepresentation” on the landlord to get her to submit a motion to the next GM (and to garner support for that to be called soon) that written permission be granted to keep the dog on the lot. It’s the OC’s permission which is required, their decision overrides the EC/SM and you may find more pet-lovers there. If that is unfavourable, you’ll have to go to the CTTT for a ruling on whether the refusal was “unreasonable”. But, by then your lease will be up.
That’s the end of the advice, now the rant.
The landlord misrepresented the situation. The leasing agent misrepresented the situation. The leasing agent breached the Act by failing to supply a copy of the By-Laws. The tenant failed due diligence by not reading the written By-Laws prior to signing the lease.
Why is sorting out this mess the OC’s job?
Particularly for tenants who may be on a 6 or 12 month lease.
Calling meetings, writing minutes, appearing at the CTTT to justify their position, appearing again at the CTTT to seek an order for removal of unauthorised pets, etc, etc.
EC members are people too! And entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their lot. I’m not referring to barking, I’m referring to other residents dumping their self-inflicted problems in their lap.
BTW, fear of noise, smell, soilage and wandering are not the only reasons some schemes ban pets. What if there are other residents with allergies? What about other owners who bought into a scheme because it was pet-free by By-Law? How do you quantify their loss?
Question – Why would anyone ban blankets anyway? Joke folks!
I haven’t figured out how to do partial quotes yet, so I’ll just answer in plain text.
Because of the covenant in the Act, action can be taken against tenants in the same way as against owners, namely by the issue of a Notice To Comply stating the By-Law which has allegedly been breached.
It would be far better if the standard lease did contain a clause requiring compliance with the By-Laws and a copy the current By-Laws was attached to the lease, but I note that the Minister hasn’t indicated that changes to the Residential Tenancy Act will be made consistent with upcoming changes to the Strata Schemes Management Act.
The EC/OC/SM will usually supply a copy of the By-Laws if asked, but if a new resident (owner or tenant) demands a copy from those who don’t actually have the legal responsibility to provide it when his own “side” has failed in their legal responsibility to do so, and threatens to continue behaviour which he has already been told (correctly or incorrectly) is “wrong”, then that will just get up the EC/OC/SM’s nose.
Kiwipaul, I’ve noticed from your other posts that you’re very much a “letter of the law” man. If it’s the law (or By-Law) then it’s to be obeyed. If it’s not law, you have the freedom to do what you like.
I’m saying not every possible scenario or way of breaching a scenario can be covered with By-Laws. Harmonious living in a strata scheme also depends on civility, manners and consideration for other people.
Plasteck says this is about “how often the car is used” and he’s probably right.
Let’s do some mathematics even though we have no numbers.
If there were enough resident overflow spaces for every lot to have one, then the developer would have allocated them out so he could get more money. Conclusion, there are less spaces than one per lot. Implication, they are to be shared by residents. Enter the concept of “hogging”, another word which is subjective and impossible to define in By-Laws.
Right or wrong, Plasteck has been perceived to be “hogging”.
One thing he could do would be to move his car every day to a visibly different spot. That’s if vacant parking spots are as abundant as he says. From the EC/OC/SM’s reaction, I suspect they’re not.
Kiwipaul, I disagree with your advice in this instance as it doesn’t seem to match your usual wisdom.
First, I would not advise a new tenant to continue breaching a (possible) By-Law until the EC/OC/SM provides written evidence of it. As you have rightly said, it’s not their responsiblity. It’s the landlord’s or Leasing Agent’s responsibility, so Plasteck’s “people” are already on shaky ground. I would advise him to comply with what he has been told is the “rule” until his own people provide him a copy of the By-Laws.
Second, I would never advise a resident that “if others are breaking the rules you are entitled to as well”. Anyone who uses that excuse to me gets the response that it’s everyone’s duty to obey the By-Laws and it’s everone’s duty to uphold the By-Laws, so they have failed on two counts.
Third, one of the problems with the NSW Standard Residential Agreement (the Lease) is that it does NOT contain a clause requiring compliance with the By-Laws. Section 44(2) of the Act imposes a covenant on Lessees to obey the By-Laws, but what tenant ever reads the Act?
Plasteck, by all means post a copy of the By-Laws, but I don’t think the answer lies therein.
For instance, the model Pets By-Law requires that the OC “not unreasonably refuse permission” but no-one defines “unreasonableness”. So I’m not too hopeful that you will find a definition of “semi-permanent storage” in your By-Laws.
Strata living is not just governed by the Act and your scheme’s By-Laws but by common sense, consideration for others and the way your individual scheme “works” on a day-to-day basis. A few weeks observation is probably insufficient to correctly deduce that.
Finally, your description of your scheme sounds like utopia. Every lot has its own garage and there are three additional parking “areas” (not “spaces”, as I originally misunderstood). The spaces in these areas are so underutilised that you can drive off to work and have a reasonable expectation of finding the very same spot or another one vacant when you come home. And “during the day … most of the spots are empty”.
That description doesn’t gel with my knowledge of greedy strata developers, minimalistic Council requirements and (Sydney) land values.
Neither does it gel with your EC/OC/SM’s speedy response to finding an unknown car parked in the resident overflow area.
I note that you didn’t answer any of my previous questions, but I think some numerical information would be more helpful than a copy of the By-Laws.
As 1jasper points out, it will be interesting to see which piece of legislation overrides the other, the Building Code of Australia or the Strata Schemes Management Act.
At the moment they are proposing to allow permanent restriction of opening width, which of course has unintended ventilation consequences.
The cheapest way for the OC to achieve this is to screw a block of alumimium down into the bottom track. Doesn’t even need a full-width dowell. Owners who desire to breathe fresh air could remove the aluminium block and install keyed window locks or crim-safe flyscreens at their own expense.
Maybe, further down the line, the NSW Government intends to compel OCs to install air-conditioning for each lot to provide the ventilation necessary for the safe raising of children.
I suppose that’s one solution to global warming – give everyone an air-conditioner so they can stay cool !!!
Perhaps the NSW Government would also care to recommend how OCs address the cost issue of responsible parents who have already installed window locks now having to contribute for the fitting of window locks to irresponsible parents’ lots? Should we reimburse responsible parents for costs already incurred?
Has anyone else noticed the diametrically opposed solutions for child safety in strata blocks and around schools?
In strata blocks we’re going to lock the kids in. At schools, instead of locking them in with a fence, they’re allowed to run out onto the road, and every driver passing by, for eternity, has to slown down after noticing the myriad of signs and flashing lights.
Still not enough information.
OK, every lot has its own garage. How many lots in your scheme?
What’s in your garage? Is it filled with junk (sorry, good stuff)?
Or did you rent a unit with only one garage when you have more than one car?
If you live with others (wife, girlfriend, flatmate etc) you wouldn’t use all the hot water just because you got up early and had a “first come first served” shower.
The same principle applies to limited resident parking spots in a strata block.
And that principle is called “consideration for others”.
“Semi-permanent storage” is probably just the EC’s way of telling you to “stop hogging” one of the only two resident overflow parking spots.
You are so right.
I think it is just politicians grandstanding at the moment, we will have to wait and see what the legislation contains.
The media reports referred only to locks, whereas I believe the legislation for new builldings already permits bars, safety-type flyscreens or limit locks.
Let me add a few more considerations.
Will this apply to casement windows as well as sliding windows?
Will there be a minimum sill height which creates an exemption? For instance, bathroom and laundry windows.
Who is responsible for lost keys? (The LPI definition of Common Property says the Owner, not the OC).
If the window is locked open 12.5cm, then the occupier loses the key, then it rains, who is responsible for damage to common property?
As you rightly say, children can fall from balconies too, and as balconies can only be accessed via sliding doors, why not extend this to sliding balcony doors?
When smoke alarms became compulsory in existing buildings, the obligation was not loaded onto the OC. Owners were individually responsible. Why should window locks be any different?
Then there’s the cost. Yes, insignificant compared to a child’s life. But, Westmead Childrens Hospital says $5 per lock. The recent media release says $15. Neither includes the services of a locksmith to install them. This could turn into another pink batts / solar panel rort.
I know, let’s give the OC more responsibility and more worK.