Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Whale said:
the ability to seek the imposition of $550 penalties against you (yes, in multiples if necessary), and the authority to enter your townhouse for the purpose of installing window locking devices there of a type that’s compliant (of which the $5 item is one) whether you like it or not!
Yes but this $550 penalty can only be applied after they have lost their case at Adjudication (which I doubt they would as they already have locks on the windows) and refused to comply with the Adjudication ruling. If it ever got this far they would only have to comply with the adjudication to avoid the fine.
Also these child proof locks have the ability to be disabled with a key to enable the window to be fully opened (which satisfies the fire escape concern) and nobody has explained to my satisfaction why a locked window is not considered childproof if locked shut.
I was wrong don’t give your landlord your last bill give him ALL your power bills and ask to be re-compensated which over the last 12 months should be about $5,000.
You do not pay for electricity and gas used in common areas or adjoining premises and if you are being charged you can negotiate with the landlord for compensation. If this fails, apply to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) for orders that the landlord carry out repairs in order to stop this from continuing and for compensation. Contact your local Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service (TAAS) for help.
https://www.tenants.org.au/factsheet-23-utilities
However you will need to engage an electrician to provide you written proof of what you state but this shouldn’t cost more than $200 at most and you should get this back when you win.
see here also (this wouldn’t cut and paste) UTILITIES
https://www.tenantsrights.org.au/Publications_Archive/
The fact is the meter has to be an accurate measure of YOUR usage which your meter is not and if you are not on off peak power for water heating your landlord is liable for ALL your power bills until the meter does record only your usage. If you are on off peak power he is only liable for the off peak cost.
Have another look at your tenancy agreement especially this section:
10. The tenant agrees to pay:
10.5 water usage charges, if the landlord has installed water efficiency measures referred to in clause 11 and the residential premises.
I believe it would also depend on whether the hot water is metered or just a % of the total. If it is metered and you only pay for what you use then it’s reasonable (subject to 10.5).
I agree with Whales idea the problem is if it is off peak supply that heats the water it will take a couple of days to take effect (my tank takes 5 days before it’s noticeably cooler after switching off the heater).
However have a look at your tenancy agreement
9. The landlord agrees to pay:
9.3 all charges for the supply of electricity, gas (except bottled gas) or oil to the tenant at the residential premises that are not separately metered,
Your hot water is not separately metered so give the bill to the agent and tell him you expect the landlord to pay all power bills until the situation is rectified. You can also inform him (lie) that you will be away for 4 weeks in June and you will be turning off the power during this period (including power to heat the water) and he should inform the other residents that they will have no hot water for 4 weeks.
@Whale said:
And all for a $5 fitting; you’re joking right?
But the whole point is that he already has locks on the windows that lock them closed, so he is complying with the 2018 act IMHO.
@JimmyT said:
The Act’s intention isn’t to give responsibility to the OC, but to make sure someone is responsible if the by-law is badly written or negligent in this regard. I think you might be up the creek without the proverbial on this one.
Must admit I agree with JT on this one but you do have a couple of not exactly ideal options IMHO.
1) As they only make up 25% of entitlements vote down any improvements to these parking spaces.
2) Advise them that unless they agree to a new bylaw transferring responsibility for maintenance to the lot owners the Strata will be applying for a review of unit entitlements which if approved will increase their Strata fees to compensate their increase lot value.
3) Advise them that you will be applying to have the bylaw declared invalid as Strata property was transferred to selected lot owners with no monetary compensation to the Strata (this is the weakest threat because bylaws have to be objected to within 2 years of registration but they might not know that).
@AJP said:
The two storey townhouses are outnumbered by single storey villas in the complex and they could vote it in next time he brings it up because it doesn’t effect them. I really do not want another lock on my windows, especially the one the SM is pushing for, as my vertical drapes wouldn’t sit flat and would catch on it when they are opened and closed.
I still believe you are correct and having to install a second lockable device is ridiculous. So advise the other owners that you won’t be paying because it’s common property and Strata are liable for the cost of an unnecessary device. Also as the device is not required before 2018 the act might be repealed or changed before then.
If they still pass the motion inform the SM that unless he obtains an adjudication ruling you will not permit access to your property to have this extra device installed and ask them to minute this refusal. If they take it to adjudication it will cost thousands (if SM runs with it and the strata will have to pay). Even if you loose they cannot claim the costs back from you and it will cost you virtually nothing except to write a letter stating that you already have locks on the windows and extra locks aren’t required.
You will only be possibly liable for costs if you refuse to comply with the adjudication order which at worst will tell you to allow the locks to be fitted.
@isydowner said:
It’s their name and address for postal of notices only right?Email, phone numbers or other ‘direct’ contact details are forbidden by the Privacy Act right?
Here is what the act says
98 What must be recorded in the strata roll?
(1) There must be recorded in the strata roll in relation to a particular lot:
(a) the owner’s name and an Australian address for service of notices or the name of the owner’s agent appointed in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 4 and the agent’s Australian address for service of noticesBut a lot of SM include the phone no and email add (ours does) if they have been supplied you would need to view your Strata Roll to know if your SM does this or not.
Our SM supplies an electronic copy on request at no charge.
@AJP said:
I live in a complex with four two storey town houses. All our windows have window locks so they can be secured in the fully closed position. Are we also required to install window opening limiters, so windows can be locked at 12.5cms?An owners corporation will be required to install safety devices that allow windows above the ground floor to open to a maximum width 12.5cm when the lock is engaged
I read this as the lock must allow a max of 12.5cm opening but if the opening is 0cm it still complies so no I don’t believe you need do anymore. You also have until 2018 before this becomes mandatory anyway.@PeterC said:
As a catch-all, our EC is proposing an amendment to our rules (aka bylaws) that would say (more elegantly) that anything installed on common property that is only for the benefit of one unit must be maintained in a safe condition by the unit owner at their expense, regardless of whether the item was approved or not, and the OC has the power to make it safe and charge them.
That seems like an excellent idea if it’s legal in ACT. But in NSW I don’t believe it would work because it conflicts with the NSW Strata Act
65A
(3) If a special resolution under this section does not specify who has the
ongoing maintenance of the common property concerned, the owners
corporation has the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance.If a bylaw conflicts with a higher law the bylaw looses and your intention is to transfer general responsibility to lot owners, responsibility that the Act in NSW says resides with the strata.
My problem is with this bit maintenance of the common property concerned, in your bylaw you are not specifying which is the common property and so it conflicts with the NSW act and so is invalid.
I feel the NSW Strata Act dumps to much responsibility onto the strata for the actions of irresponsible owners.
@JimmyT said:
That’s simply not true. Maybe in Queensland, KP. But here in NSW you can create and enforce by-laws that cover the appearance of your lot from elsewhere in the strata scheme or even from outside. For instance, some buildings insist on a certain colour of internal blinds so the building has a uniform appearance from outside. That’s private property on a private lot. So, certainly as far as NSW and Victoria are concerned, you are wrong.I’m sure this is a windup JT because you surely not advocating that Strata can insist that table and chairs must be removed from a balcony (or courtyard) if they are visible from the common areas or outside.
Bearing in mind 50% of balconies now have glass fronts which makes anything on the balcony visible and so could be classed as spoiling the uniform appearance of the building. Any EC in QLD that tried to enforce this standard bylaw regarding appearance would be voted out at the next AGM.
I don’t think I can last remember when I’ve not seen tables and chairs (and other items) on occupied balconies in Oz.
Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION
I agree with all that PeterC says but in NSW this sort of thing needs a byelaw to be registered to ensure future owners don’t come back to the OC for maintenance of this extra cabling.
So what PeterC proposes as a motion should instead be approved as a bylaw as it seems to cover all of the issues. This is not a problem because it is the same proportion of the vote to approve a new bylaw as to approve improvements.
The cost of registering a new bylaw is a couple of hundred $ which I think the Strata should pay for to eliminate future problems. Their is no requirement to spend more money on getting a lawyer to draw one up for such a simple change, just common sense.
@JimmyT said:
Not true. The Owners Corp can still issue and enforce by-laws that relate to the appearance of items on lot property. That’s how, for instance, owners can be prevented from drying laundry on their own property but which is visible from outside.
I disagree it depends on whether it’s common or lot property. If it’s lot property they have every right to have a table and chairs in the courtyard (and the worm farm if it doesn’t smell or appear an eyesore). Also a rotary clothes line in a courtyard to dry clothes would generally be acceptable.
If common property the Strata can ask for all to be removed IF the rule is applied consistently throughout the complex.
Most courtyards would be lot property (not common) and so this needs to be determined as a first step.
Strata building insurance doesn’t cover carpets within the lot, these should be on your contents policy.
The only time that the Strata would be liable was if the damage to the carpets was due to a failure of drainage infrastructure or lack of maintenance of the said infrastructure.
Whether the damage was due to extreme weather (contents policy) or Strata negligence (Strata) would depend on who pays.
Standby for for a further increase in commissions as Wotif are increasing theirs from 12% to 15%
The rorts in holiday letting are to numerous to mention if you have a bad manager and good managers are worth their weight in gold.
Here is a report from a major Hotel in Gold Coast which got caught double dipping and prosecuted.