Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@SMO said:
How does reform plan to address the issue of cronyism not only in relation to by-law enforcement but in the day to day management of many SPs?
Their is already a procedure in place you (any resident) can take action at CTTT against any other resident breaching a bylaw by going to concillation and adjudication.
This option isn’t restricted to the OC, EC or SM, they are available to all residents.
In QLD if an EC refuses to take action against a breach of bylaws the EC can be brought before the BCCM (CTTT in NSW) because it has a duty to enforce the bylaws written into the act (not sure if this can be done in NSW as the EC is not oblidged to enfore the bylaws in the NSW act).
On thinking about this I don’t think you need to go to SAT provideing you have enough votes to pass a motion at GM or Committee meeting to restore the common property to it’s origional state.
Once motion is passed the EC or OC would tell the offenders to remove the structures at their own cost within 14 days. If they refused or declined the EC or OC would have the structure removed and the offender would be billed the cost.
The OC are perfectly within their rights to make changes to the common property once duly authorized and this would force the offenders to go to SAT to try and stop the removal (fat chance).
If you don’t have the numbers to pass a motion my first response would apply.
Sugest you go here and download the guide:
https://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/web/Strata+Title+Information
Seems you need to take action at SAT* (cost $55) to get the roller doors removed and Visitor Parking returned to the strata. Even with a bylaw in place Strata Owners CANNOT seize Visitor Parking bays without council approval due to the Development Approval conditions.
Seems to me to be an open and shut case and the max fine if the doors aren’t remove is $10,000.
[*SAT is the State Administrative Tribunal – Editor]
I agree with Whale unless you register a bylaw it is meaningless except as a visual deterient.
Even if you did register it as a bylaw trying to enforce it would be a nightmare because you would have to prove they exceeded the speed limit (do you have access to a properly calibrated police speed gun??).
Use the sign as a thread and hope they don’t know any better.
I don’t see why this would be an insurance claim (unless it’s a new building and you are claiming under the builders warranty and then their would be no excess).
Sounds to me like it’s it’s straight forward building maintenance and this is clearly common property and so it is the strata’s problem to fix and pay for. I’m assuming it’s rainwater comming in.
I would suggest you obtain a quote yourself to get the problem fixed and hand the quote to the Sec or SM and ask them to vote the issue (give them the option of getting their own quote) and give them say 21 days to get back to you.
[NB: The following advice applies to NSW. See above for the relevant advice for Victoria (where Marina lives)]
If they ignore your request or vote to do nothing you will have to take them to CTTT due to their failure to abide by section 62 of the act.
62 What are the duties of an owners corporation to maintain and repair property?
(1) An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of
good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal
property vested in the owners corporation.The cost of going to CTTT is approx $160 and you are almost certain to win and force the OC to carry out the repairs.
I don’t consider he has a case against you (it is excessively difficult to prove someone is noisy).
But why not explain you have the same problem with him closeing his door and ask him how we both could fix the problem.
Why cannot owners of investment properties be held accountable for the action of their tennants when the Owners are advised of the problem yet do a
“not my problem guv”
Knowledgable tennants know their rights at CTTT but if they risked being evicted or entered on the bad tennant database they might start to comply with the bylaws but only the owner (or their rep can do this).
My understanding of how a SM is appointed is that if you recieve a ruling that a SM is to be appointed the person (or EC or OC) that won the ruling has to provide the details of the SM. I would assume they are given a suitable time frame to find one.
Generally it would be an individual that has brought the case for a SM to be appointed to run the Strata because the OC and EC are dysfunctional and so it would be pointless expecting them to provide a SM.
@ccbaxter said:
Perhaps I was naively assuming that, once the CTTT sees this patently unfair, ill-conceived and ancient By-Law which demonstrably breaks several rules, and the situation we’re in, they’d have no hesitation in throwing it out.
The Adjudicator might not even get as far as looking at your arguments if he is a by the book type. He will go through your Adjudication application see you have ticked no concillation and reject the application because no concillation was attempted.
You will loose your $78 for adjudication and have to pay another $78 for concillation and if that does not resolve it another $78 for a second adjudication hearing.
I agree with SX not going to Concillation risks your chance of even getting an Adjudication hearing because you have to state whether you have been to concillation on the Adj application and an Adj could reject your request if you haven’t.
Also the time scale is against your (it’s 35 years ago) and I also don’t know whether a statue of limitations applies to bylaws.
A safer argument would be that the EC is planning on spending OC funds on exclusive use areas which should be the reasponsibility of the owners that benefit from the exclusive use areas.
Whatever you decide put forward as many arguments as possible to the Adjudicator for the bylaw to be overturned or the spending to be refused because you only need the Adj to find in your favour on one of the points for you to win.
@just get on with it said:
KP must be paying his strata manager a fortune if he expects him to be a building manager & handyman as well.Neither the SM nor a BM will actually do the repairs they will charge for their time and then hire someone to actually carry out the repairs.
Bear in mind our SM charges $200 / hour for extra services so you can expect to pay a BM 8 hours x $200 approx $1600 per week plus the cost of the tradesman to actually do the repair.
Part of the SM job is to organise quotes for repairs when informed about them so if you have absoloutely no resident who is capable of phoneing the SM (or employed handyman) and telling them that a light bulb needs replaceing then yes you need a BM.
Section 48 of the Strata Act 1996 addresses this issue
(2) A notification cannot be lodged in the Registrar-General’s office more than 2 years after the passing of the resolution for the amendment, repeal or new by-law.
The bylaw may have been approved correctly but it wasn’t registered until 4 years later so it is invalid, and the whole thing needs to be revoted again.
BUT
This happened in 1979 and so I don’t know what act was in force then and you would have to find the relevant act and see what it says about registering new bylaws. The magic date is 21 May 1979 and so whatever act was relevant on that date is the rule for registering new bylaws.
Your SM is just ripping you off by getting a property manager to do his job for him (he has been able to get away with it whilst your couple did his job for him) now he wants you to fork out for a building manager who will charge for his services and then employ someone to do the work (which strata will also pay for).
Dump your current SM and get one who will do a combined service or keep him and look in your local paper for a handyman who will do some of these tasks at a fraction of the cost. You can vote to authorize him to spend up to $xxx (replace light bulbs) on minor repairs and anything beyond this needs EC or OC approval.
The chances of the SM reducing his fees are miniscule IMHO.
@puff_ng said:
Man, I don’t know whether my strata manager is up to this …
Well don’t use the SM, he will charge the Strata for his time anyway.
If you want you can take the action against the offender yourself or on behalf of the Strata (need a motion paseed at a EC meeting authorizeing you to act on behalf of the EC).