Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I agree with what Jimmy says about making an enemy for life.
If you obtain a copy of the plans for the complex and they denote the Visitor Parking as Visitor Parking then this was a condition of the Development Approval process and these bays CANNOT be used for anything other than VP (without council approval).
It dosn’t matter what the bylaws say, or what motions have been approved granting permission to use the VP they are all irrevelant as they conflict with a higher law the council Development Approval and so are illegal.
The EC should be issueing a NTC to both offenders ASAP and then they can be hit with fines of up to $550 or go the concillation and adjudication route and then the fines are up to $5500.
The rubbish is not so cut and dried but if you have a majourity on the EC or OC you can do something about it.
@daphne diaphanous said:
I agree with you JimmyT, it would be much easier to ask the insurer. However, our insurer will provide us with nothing, including the paperwork..Suggest that you inform the insurer that unless they provide details you require that at the next AGM you will provide an alternative insurance quote and ask the OC to approve your quote as opposed to the SM’s.
The OC is perfectly entitled to use their own Insurance Broker and cut out the SM if they want too. Do a Google search for Strata Insurance Brokers and they will be more than happy to quote you to insure your Strata.
Doing it this way any insurance claims would go straight to the broker cutting out the SM (and he would loose his commission).
@Tony said:
2014 and the nonsense continues — copy of BCA exec minutes landed in my inbox over Christmas noting that they had conditionally approved my application for shutters on basis that quote — ” requires 100 per cent approval from all those affected” is this even legal ? Interestingly we have not been informed of this decision by our own SP exec , who had I understand sought their own legal advice .No I don’t belive this is legal UNLESS their is a bylaw requireing 100% approval (and I even doubt if this was property registered it would stand up as it conflicts with the act).
Take a look around your estate and see what alterations others have done and then check the bylaws for SR relevant to those alterations. Also check minutes of GM and EC meeting to see what others have been granted permission to do (especially this objector).
Strata have to apply the rules even handedly and so cannot deny one person permission whilst granting it to others (without a very good reason).
You can use these unapproved alterations in your case at CTTT to show the unreasonbleness of the objections. Also if a neighbour had to give approval for any building that affected their view the building industry would grind to a halt.
I understood that assuming no permission was granted for the alterations then the person doing the alterations can be held liable for the restitution, the Strata is reasponsible for the repairs but they can bill the owner for the cost.
The exception to this is if the current owner is not the owner who did the alteration and in this case it is totally a Strata cost.
For example if an owner decided that a common property structure needed demolishing and then went ahead and demolished it would you expect the Strata to pay for the rebuilding, I know who I’ve make pay the bill.
@OverIt said:
Thank you will check the contract but I believe no that those duties are not delegated.That surprises me because who creates the admin fund budget / sinking fund budget the EC?? that you vote on at the AGM.
Does the EC formulate the agenda for the AGM and then send it to the SM for distribution, if so why bother having a SM when the EC is doing the SM job.
In most situations the SM creates the Agenda for the AGM covering all the basic requirements of the act and adds any motions that the owners or EC submit for inclusion.
yes a SM can put a motion to the AGM
In our complex most of the motions are from the SM, Admin fund, sinking fund, approval of last years agenda, etc.
But why is the SM putting a motion to terminate their services, all he has to do is give notice that his service is not going to be renewed when current contract expires or he gives the required notice.
Three things Whale
1) I’ve been told that short term letting is considered a buisness and generally their is a bylaw that requires approval by the EC for running a buisness from a lot.
2) Short-term letting / holiday accomadation requires different fire standards and so I would have thought you should have some leverage here.
3) Your strata insurance is based on a residential complex and if you are doing holiday lets that is no longer the case and so your insurance premiums should go up (the extra payable by the holiday letting owners).
Good luck.
@Whale said:
Luke – as always, it depends.If the pipe was within or on Common Property but it served only your Lot, then its repair and the rectification of any damage caused by its failure are both your responsibility, with the location of the problem section of pipework and the rectification of any damage to the Lot being claimable by you on your contents insurance.
I’m sorry Whale but I disagree, if the pipe failure occurs in common OR lot property (within a wall and not a pipe from a wall outlet to an appliance) the cost of the repair would be covered by the Strata building insurance. The strata building insurance covers the whole building (not just the common property).
Any damage to your contents would be claimable on your contents insurance (and would not be the OC responsibility). The contents insurance will never cover the repair of structural items (but it will cover the damage caused by structural failure to contents)
OP why are you trying to blame the OC for what is in effect an accident and is why we have insurance. The exception to this would be if you reported a small leak and the EC did nothing and then the pipe burst causing serious damage, is this why you are trying to blame the OC.
@chai said:
The reasonable request from a lot owner to install an air conditioner compressor in the common area cannot be denied. At all times, the pump is considered the property and the responsibility of the lot owner.In NSW I consider approving a motion to install anything on common property without a bylaw defineing who maintains the item a potential nightmare for the OC.
If the OC or EC just passes a motion approveing this it appears to me that they (the OC) are accepting reasponsibility for the ongoing repair and maintenance of the item because they have not demanded a bylaw clarifing that the lot owner should accept the reasponsibility.
So how many Strata in NSW have approved one of these motions in the past not realiseing the potential ongoing consequences of this seemingless innocuous decision
If the seller is serious about selling the property THEY should provide at the very least
1) Copy of the current bylaws
2) Copy of the minutes of last AGM
3) Copy of current financial report (sinking and admin fund)
These are fundamental details which any buyer should have access to before proceeding futher.
If the seller declines to provide any of these you need to ask yourself WHY.
@Tony said:
Am currently in dispute over addition of a sun screen (shutter) to the left elevation of our balcony that has been approved by the scheme architects for our community.Any changes to the outside appearance of the lot need Strata approval via an ordinary motion at an GM or EC meeting. Unless he has it written into his contract that he is entitled to unrestricted water views (very unlikely) he is bluffing.
If this screen is attached to the common property some would argue it requires a bylaw (I’m not of that persuasion for minor changes) but if it free standing you just need a simple majourity.
1) My feeling is it is quite reasonable that if you allow one person to park in front of their garage you should allow all residents to do the same (whether it’s a single garage or double).
2) As for visitor parking it has been ruled in QLD that a visitor is someone whose primary purpose is to visit a resident and not have any secondary reason. So if your visitor is staying and going to work or study each day their sole purpose is not as a visitor and so is ineligible to use the visitor parking. The same reasoning should apply Oz wide.
long term you could also pass a bylaw defining limits on the time a visitor can park in a visitor parking bay. Max of 1 day per week for 8 hours or max of 4 hours per day.
Repairing the balcony with no changes just requires a simple majority motion to be passed, but any changes to the design requires a special resolution to be passed and so unless the owners can get a 75% vote in favor you are ok.
Even if they did get this motion through any changes to your lot requires your written consent. I’m basing this on the fact that the courtyard is effectively an exclusive use area and changes to an exclusive use area require the lot owners consent.
@Kangaroo said:
They should be taken out of strata title and put back on Torrens Title with covenants or easements concerning common walls.The infurating thing is in QLD the Strata act allows for townhouses under a seperate set of rules (as opposed to appartments) which make perfect sense when applied to townhouses (effectively Torrens) but allows for common areas.
Problem is developers don’t use it (I’ve been unable to find any defined this way anywere in Brisbane) and so just creating the regulation is not enough you have to force the developers to use it.
Building format = appartments
Standard format = townhouses
I believe the same split applies to ACT as well
@Panamenke said:
We had an EC meeting and agreed to go to tender for a new SM and when quotes etc had been received an EGM was to be called to decide from the tenders who to appoint as SM. This did not happen since some members of the EC want this agent and went ahead and called an EGM. There was only one motion on the agenda and that was to appoint this agent again.
It’s the vote at the EGM that is important. You should have voted down the motion and as you didn’t it looks to me like you don’t have the numbers and so their is little you can do unless they (EC or SM) take action that are in serious breach of the act.