[kiwipaul]

@Whale said:

Oh and KWP….. I think I’d sooner be in a Rolls Royce when the wheels fall off, but it sounds like you need to move south and live in a (NSW) torrens titled property. 

I’ve spent about half my life living in a townhouse (terrace house) in the UK which was effectively a freehold (same as Torrens in NSW) and so I know the advantages and disadvantages.

When I bought my current townhouse I expected it to be similiar with the strata just looking after the driveways and a few other items and I was gobsmacked when I found out how needlessly complicate it is.

Townhouses don’t need the strata overhead which they have been lumbered with IMHO and I strongly suspect it is because investors like strata because it removes the need to maintain the property from them and dumps it onto the Strata.

[kiwipaul]

I agree with Whale if you want a rolls royce strata you need to do what Whale suggests but most of that is nice to do not must do.

One way to drastically reduce the Strata admin to virtually zero (except for insurance) would be to pass an exclusive use bylaw transferring the responsibility for each townhouse to the actual owners creating effectively freehold townhouses) and then each owner would organize their own maintenance and repairs.

I’ve lived in townhouses in the UK and this is how they were run and so it works. This would only work for townhouses or free standing villas (not apartments of any description). To do this you would need everyone’s agreement and a bylaw written by a strata lawyer.

If you are all owner occupiers you might succeed but just 1 investor will not like this as it puts extra work on them.

[kiwipaul]

Basically the only critical item that you need to worry about is the strata Insurance and that it gets paid and so you would have to set up a bank account and make sure all the owners paid their share (25%) of the insurance into it.

Everything else is nice to do (you would have to organise an AGM with a motion to approve the insurance quote as well).

This company

https://www.stratamax.com/

provide an online accounting service that you would update and can carry documents online that owners can access (bylaws, minutes, plans, etc) but I don’t know if they provide a service to self managed but our SM use them.

[kiwipaul]

@axelc said:
Thanks for the info. Yes I think that will be our next port of call. Trying to get strata details out of agent who’s trying to convince us it will be fine. 

Well if your agent is so confident he will have no problem you putting a condition into the sale contract similiar to what Whale suggested.

This would enable you to go ahead with the purchase provided you are granted permission to install the laundary and then all the onus is on the agent to deliver.

[kiwipaul]

Changes to common property require a Special Resoloution carried by a 75% majourity at a GM (EC cannot authorize changes).

You could advise them that if they keep making changes without an approved SR you will take them to CTTT to have them pay to restore the situation.

Also advise the SM not to pay any invoices or authorize any work unless a SR has been approved at a GM (for changes not general maintenance). Work can be approved retrospectively but for changes it requires a SR and so make sure this is what is on the agenda.

If these people have the numbers you have a problem.

[kiwipaul]

I’m sorry but that decision by ORS seems crazy as they seem to be saying that doors and windows on a boundary wall (common property) are 50% owners responsibility. Which is contrary to everything I know about strata.

I admit I know little about ACT Strata but the decision does not seem right to me but as this is an NSW site I will drop the issue.

 

[kiwipaul]

I agree with all the other comments.

ALSO The SM works for the EC and OC and has to comply with their wishes. They can make no arbitary decisions (unless authorized by a previous motion i.e. to spend up to $xxx without EC or OC approval for repairs).

If the Sec has approved spending without approval from EC or OC then tell him to refund the money to the Strata fund untill a subsequent motion is passed approveing the spending via a vote.

You can threaten him with action at CTTT to revover the money from him (you can use this threat to get him to cancel the EGM).

Also get Sec to organise another EGM (without inviiting the SM) to vote the motions that you wish to be voted.

Get rid of this SM ASAP is the bottom line.

[kiwipaul]

@Austman said:

So this means the sliding doors to the courtyard are part of a boundary wall.  And as it’s an external wall of the building, the following applies (from Unit Title Act 2001):

I’m also not familiar with ACT law.

But your interpretation seems to imply any doors or windows facing onto the courtyard are Strata responsibility. Also the doors don’t front onto common property they front onto a private courtyard and so it doesn’t comply to part (b) of your quote.

 

(b) the part of the wall outside the boundary is common property.

 

Also you have previously advised that any window or door in a load bearing wall is Strata responsibility and this would imply the strata is responsible for internal doors (and windows) within the lot that are part of load bearing walls which is unlikely IMHO.

[kiwipaul]

@Austman said:

Just to add that I’ve seen in various legal judgements and opinions that windows and doors are considered to be components of walls.  So a “wall” would include any door, window or other structure within the wall and their working parts.

 

Were these legal judgements in ACT or another state because each state has different rules. In QLD the balcony door would definately be owners reasponsibility but if these ruling were in ACT you have your ans.

 

[kiwipaul]

I’m not so sure it’s common property because it depends if the balcony door is considered part of the balcony or part of the building.

(b)     any part of a balcony on the building. (common property)

 

The door is def not load bearing and so it could be considered part of the lot and owners responsibility. The Act doesn’t mention doors or windows as being defined parts and this omission implies that it could be owners responsibility if it is not considered part of the balcony.

 

 

[kiwipaul]

@DaveB said:
In the ACT there are Class A and Class B units.  Class A generally covers apartments which are built with multi storey construction, with lots one above the other. 

We have the same in QLD Class A (= Building format) and class B (= Standard format).

Problem is in QLD the developers classes everything as Class A because this is more beneficial to investors ( because Strata is responsible for more of the building and so less hassle for the investors). This really p*sses me off as I live in one of these complexes and I’ve been unable to discover any development in Brisbane that uses Class B for townhouses and standalone villas.

This is a case of developers (and council) abusing perfectly logical legislation for their own benefit.

Do you have the same problem in ACT.

 

[kiwipaul]

The biggest problem you are going to have no matter which way you go about allowing everyone to pay themselves is that every owner has to agree (in writing) and if they don’t those that pay themselves might find themselves paying for the replacement windows of those that refused to sign up or did nothing.

This will be very difficult to organise how you want to.

[kiwipaul]

Well you could create a bylaw that gives exclusive use of the said windows to each lot and make them responsible for it’s maintenance.

BUT everyone would have to agree to this (without exception) and sign a document to this effect and you would need to get a soliitor to write a bylaw to cover this.

From then on the said windows would be entirely the lot owners responsibility (for ever) and if they leaked and caused damage to other units that lot owner would be liable (not the strata). In apartments this is risky in townhouses more acceptable.

[kiwipaul]

Basically NO

Repairs to comon property must be based on unit entitlement, it is a fundamental concept of Strata. Otherwise why should a ground floor owner contribute to the repair of the penthouse roof.

It dosn’t matter who the main beneficary is the whole strata has to contribute.

[kiwipaul]

@dech said:
None, all he has done is sent a letter to someone, if the EC request removal it would be in the same category and both would provide some indication of the councils requirements which could then be considered by the OC.  Alterations to common property require agreement by 75% of either owners or entitlements at a properly convened general meeting.

Must admit I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider removal of a tree requires a SR.

Here is what the act says

65A Owners corporation may make or authorise changes to common property
(1) For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property, an owners corporation or an owner of a lot may take any of the following action, but only if a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed:
(a) add to the common property,
(b) alter the common property,
(c) erect a new structure on the common property.

 

Point is where do you draw the line, what about the removal of a bush, plant or even a weed, they all could be considered requireing a SR. I would just get an EC vote to remove the tree and let the chairman challange it if he is so inclined. I would not rate his chances IMHO.

Council approval is a different ball game.

[Author]

Replies