Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’d say you are pretty much stuffed.
The only argument I can see is for discrimination against you by not applying the bylaws universally.
Take photos of the cats roaming common areas and other dogs not being carried over the common areas to show the bylaws aren’t being applied fairly. You could even take photos of resident cars parked in visitor parking bays, rubbish left on common areas, etc to show the EC aren’t applying any of the bylaws consistently.
If you took this to conciliation and then adjudication I believe you would loose BUT the adjudicator might insist that the EC enforce the bylaws against the other pet owners not complying with said bylaws.
Informing these pet owners of your intention (and one of the consequences) MIGHT be enough to cause the EC to reconsider action against you.
I believe OC should be allowed to restrict pets but only if they apply them fairly to everyone.
Haven’t found a def of Strata Visitor for NSW and the one for QLD was from an article commenting on the ruling but I’ve been unable to find the ruling.
Tenants can take action against the Strata or BC in most states but the range of issues they can object to a limited. They could take action against the Strata if they were being discriminated against is one, or if they were denied permission to keep a pet when others are allowed, etc.
But suing the strata for being given a copy of their bylaws is absurd and the strata has absolutely nothing to worry about.
In fact the strata might be considered negligent if it didn’t issue a friendly reminder to a resident who was breaking the bylaws.
You really need to post a copy of the relevant bylaw to be sure, but my opinion is they can deny you permission.
Claiming the dog is a visitor is possible but it has been ruled (in QLD) that a visitor staying overnight is considered a temp resident and so not allowed to use the visitor car parking.
The reasoning behind this was short term letting in tower blocks to holidaymakers who were using visitor parking bays claiming they were visitors (which they were) resulting in no Visitor bay being available to genuine visitors. This same argument could be used throughout Oz.
If you are going to claim the dog is just a visitor you need to find out what NSW define as a visitor.
@JimmyT said:
Why would the Owners Corp pay for a by-law that only benefits a few owners?
Maybe the bylaw should be generic to cover ALL alterations to common property such that any alterations done by an owner benefiting only that owner remains the responsibility of that owner to maintain the improvement for ever. This would apply whether the alteration was approved or not.
With what I know about common property in NSW I think this ought to be mandatory for EVERY strata in NSW to ensure the strata doesn’t become responsible for approved or unapproved alterations done by lot owners but not registering a SBL.
I just wonder how many ordinary motions are passed in NSW granting permission for changes by a OC (without a SBL) not realizing they are committing the strata to maintain said alteration for the indefinite future.
I’m afraid you are virtually powerless because their are virtually no restrictions on the spending powers of the EC in NSW. I was gobsmacked when I discovered this (in QLD they are restricted to $200 x No of lots).
On well run EC this is not a problem but when cowboys are in control you’ve seen the effects. Restrictions should be added to the new legislation.
@Adrian said:
In one complex the client was asked to pay $2600 to create a bylaw. He proceeded and we did the job.
This is a total rip off by whoever charged it, a bylaw should cost a max of $1,000 so long as it’s straight forward.
You cannot use a bylaw that specifies one unit to apply to another unit / units but you can change the bylaw by a SR and turn it into a generic bylaw.
The simple way would be to go through the current bylaw and change any ref to lot x to refer to all lots.
eg lot x accepts responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of fitted windows
To
Individual lot accepts responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of fitted windows
Or get a different Sol to rewrite the bylaw making sure he doesn’t charge more than $500 for such a simple job and the Strata should pay for this because it covers all lots.
My spelling should be perfect now I’ve upgraded Firefox 19 (which had the problem) to Firefox 26 which doesn’t (fingers crossed).
@JimmyT said:
Oh, and KP, please do us all a favour and use the spellcheck button (top right of the space you are writing in). We all make mistakes – I know I do – but as a courtesy to other readers, as sa frequent and welcome contributor to this forum, please make an effort. Thanks
yes I know my spelling is AWFUL but for some reason the spellchecker button or alt + Shift + N doesn’t work on my home m/c on your web site (but works fine on every other site I visit). I know it’s my m/c because I’m on a different m/c now and it’s spell checking as I type.
I use Firefox both now and at home and so their must be some setup wrong or maybe an upgrade missing at home. I’ll try at home using IE (aargh). Your spell checker is trying to spell check that.
Sorry.
@deliria1 said:
I spoke to the Strata Manager and while I am not sure if an SBL was registered pertaining to these screens – the minutes of the AGM indicate that the metal screen installed by some residents set the precedent & all requests for privacy screens must follow this design.If a bylaw that requires these special screens was NOT registered you have a uphill battle.
Because any sort of screen can be either approved or rejected by a simple majourity of the EC or OC according to wheter they think it complies with the byalw that you quoted (and this bylaw is non specific and so could mean anything).
Also any screen att to the common property should have an associated bylaw but this rule seems to be ignored in 90% of the cases because it can cost $1000.
In NSW with regard to a townhouse or free standing villa who paints the exterior walls facing onto the garden (in QLD it’s the owner). In fact you are suposed to ref the plans to check what is common property (thick black lines) or lot property (thin black lines).
Problem is our plans are a collection of thick and thin lines bearing very litttle relationship to the intension of the act. The whole of the upstairs of my town house is common property (even facing the garden) but the downstairs facing the garden is lot property.
I believe the Act definations should apply unless OC authorize changes and then the new plans take precedence. I don’t think the person who drew up our plans had a clue.
@deliria1 said:
Owners & Occupiers must not:
place or hang any item on their balcony/terrace which is inconsistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the Building.
This looks like a generic bylaw to me not the specific bylaw that would be required to tie down the exact requirements that Deliria1 specified. Most of this is a matter of taste and could cover all sorts of installations their should have been an SBL registered tieing down the exact specifications of the designer for any installed screens.
Evan so a simple majourity of the EC or OC could vote that the trellis is inappropiate and get it removed with a simple majourity vote.
I strongly suspect here as well no SBL was registered.
@deliria1 said:
What can be done about this timber trellis? personally now that it is there I have the feeling the EC will just say it is ok. if this does happen are those of us who did the right thing and asked for permission first and were forced to jump through hoops to get an approved design and then had to pay top dollar for it, entitled to compensation from the Owners Corporation or EC, because they were emphatic about the only design that could be installed.
Who (OC, EC or SM) actually insisted that these screens need to be an approved design and how was this decided (vote at AGM??). As these are att to common property they should have registered a generic SBL authorizeing these additions.
If the OC (EC I doubt has the authority, and SM def dosn’t) insisted that you have these screens and then did not enforce the bylaw you might have a case if they don’t apply the bylaw uniformly against everyone.
@Whale said:
If no SBL exists, then again the Owners Corporation only becomes responsible for the works if it does nothing to remedy the situation as soon as it becomes aware of it, and the current Owner at some future time sells or otherwise disposes of their Unit with the air conditioner in place.
I agree with everything Whale says except this bit. The OC remains reasponsible for the wall the a/c mounted on and even if the unit is sold I believe the only requirement of the o/c is to restore the wall to it’s origional state ie without a/c unit. Before the unit is sold they can bill the owner but after the o/c have to pay to restore the wall
The exception to this is if an ordinary motion was passed by the OC or EC giving permission to install an a/c unit without a SBL being approved and then I belive the o/c COULD be liable for the a/c.
This to me seems to be a MAJOR floor in NSW strata where owners think they are doing the right thing by allowing an improvement by a simple and inexpensive vote not realiseing the ongoing implications.
At least 2 states (QLD and VIC) clearly specify that any item (or change) that services only one unit no matter where it is located is the lot owners reasponsibility whether it has recieved permission or not. I feel fell NSW needs something similiar to protect the average owner.
@Tony said:
I have also been informed by the owners corp that they will seek orders to make me remove the shutters if I go ahead without permissions and that I am unlikely to win the case if I try to get adjudicators orders as there is now a very detailed document trail explaining due process .You have previous stated that others have fitted shuttered to their lots, so check the bylaws and ensure they have a SR registered for their alterations and if it is a generic bylaw that you can use.
If this is NO SR then all these owners could be liable to have their shutteres removed as well which might make these owners sit up and take notice.
I say again they cannot apply bylaws in a discriminanator manner and expect to win at CTTT.
You can search the AUSTRLII database using key words
Strata Hardwood floors noise
To list just those that you are intrested in. I generally use the option all of these words for my search.
You have to use strata because the database contains other cases besides strata issues.