[kiwipaul]

@OverIt said:
Please do not feed the native birds, it is unnatural and can cause all sorts of problems for the birds…. Enjoy the wildlife in the wild…

I might agree with you if we didn’t destroy their natural habitat by building houses, factories, roads, etc introduce foreign predators (cats dogs, etc) that kill and injure them.

This country has an abundance of wildlife and yet people seem to be doing their best to destroy it and I have no problem at all with people helping correct this imbalance even if it is just in a small way.

[kiwipaul]

@JimmyT said:

(5)  If a quorum, as provided by subclause (2), is not present within the next half-hour after the time fixed for the adjourned meeting, the persons present personally or by duly appointed proxy and entitled to vote constitute a quorum for considering that motion or business.

We have the same rule in QLD where we have to organise a second meeting.

BUT

We also have voting papers in QLD and so if a quorum is not present at the first meeting we hold the meeting anyway and a record is kept of everyones votes and so they are not required at the second meeting. Those that turn up at the second meeting just have to vote and their votes are added to the origional votes and so this is how decisions are made.

Saves the hassle of those that turn up at the first meeting having to come again at a later date.

[kiwipaul]

@dougdeap said:

Can I take notes or photos of the owner roll?  Is it up to the manager’s discretion or is there a law?

The SM should give you a copy if you ask (it’s a legal requirement in NSW) but they might charge you. Our SM just emails me a copy when I ask at no charge.

[kiwipaul]

Agree with PeterC.

Get the EC to obtain a quote for a automatic door closer (or a quieter door closer) and get that installed. A far better sol then trying to change residents behavior or getting an NTC or adjudication ruling

 

[kiwipaul]

I agree with the others if the parking was defined as visitor parking in the DA it still is visitor parking and so you need to inform ALL residents of the fact and get the bylaw allowing residents to park their removed.

You can tell residents to stop using it immediately (rather than after the bylaw is repealed) as it is invalid and residents parking their can be issued with a NTC based on the original bylaw.

[kiwipaul]

If these people are residents of the complex they have exactly the same rights as all other residents. If the parking is specified as residents parking (as opposed to visitor parking) they can use it as much as they like.

One solution would be to pass a bylaw limiting residents parking to 2 hours per day but it would have to apply to all residents.

[kiwipaul]

My mistake if he has 2 car spaces he should have 2 clickers.

I agree with Scotlandx I misread the origional post.

BUT RJSmith also says that

the owner of each car space is issued with a clicker for that car park to let them in/out of the building.

So if he has 2 car spaces the OC agree he should have 2 clickers. How do others who have 2 car spaces (and most likely 2 cars) get their 2nd car in / out.

[kiwipaul]

I believe you should be taking this up with the owner NOT the OC. I’m not sure whether a tenant can submit an insurance claim on the building insurance (I suspect only the owner can do this).

The only thing the OC is reasponsible for is to submit an insurance claim against the (lots fixtures and fitting) Building Insurance. What is the insurance excess if is it greater than your claim if so no claim is possible.

I also suspect insurance claims have to be lodged within a certain time scale and I would suspect 4 months is well beyond that.

Your claim must be against the owner (he should be claiming on the building insurance) as it’s NOT common property but lot property.

[kiwipaul]

From the Act

136 Owners corporation to display and give certain notices
(1) An owners corporation given a copy of an application for an order under this Chapter accompanied by the relevant notice must:
(a) immediately cause the application and notice or a copy of the application and notice to be prominently displayed on any notice board required to be maintained by or under the by-laws on some part of the common property, and
(b) keep the application and notice so displayed until the expiration of the time specified in the notice for the making of submissions,
and
(c) immediately serve a copy of the application and notice on each person whose name appears on its strata roll.

So their dosn’t seem to be a requirement to serve it to ALL owners just those affected by the dispute.

BUT if it affects all owners then I believe it should then be sent to all owners and the OC must bear the cost.

[kiwipaul]

My opinion is you should be restricted to 1 remote only per car space. I know your intention is not to abuse the system but what about others.

Australia has a major problem with rogue parking on strata and this strata seem to have found a successful way of eliminating it so why risk changing the system for the worse.

[kiwipaul]

@imaynotbeperfect said:

We’re in NSW, a multi-storey block.  For many years our OC maintained all the external doors and windows and walls, however, when we changed strata managers at the next AGM the new manager brought along a strata solicitor.

This is not uncommon as a lot of SM are unaware of the finer points (and the major points) of strata law and they will just tell you what they belive is correct and as the owners are even less knowledgable they generally get away with it.

My 10 years as a lot owner has turned me from believing everything the SM says to nothing the SM says unless I confirm it via a third source.

[kiwipaul]

I agree the Bylaw should never has been passed if 2 of you were against it.

BUT assuming this Bamboo is within the lot bylaws cannot be retrospective and so the bamboo has got a get out of jail free card.

Also even if this was not the case the EC would have to prove at CTTT that the bamboo is causing a problem and before they could enter your lot to cut it down they would require a ruling from CTTT for the EC to take this action.

[kiwipaul]

The QLD legislation is not quite so open ended and is a bit more specific:

see Here

[kiwipaul]

@PeterC said:
I thought QLD had ‘ban the banners’ legislation that renders invalid any bylaw to the extent that it prevents sustainability measures.

 

You are correct to a certain extent.

The BC can no longer restrict the installation of solar powers systems, solar hot water systems, window films that reflect the sun, paint that reflects the sun, etc and any bylaw that tries to is invalid (unless a valid exception can be argued).

It dosn’t mention clothes lines at all and most people would consider hanging clothes over a front balcony an eyesore anyway and so this type of bylaw would be enforceable.

[kiwipaul]

In fact in QLD the BC has a duty to enforce the bylaws it cannot just ignore the request because if it dosn’t take action the complainant can take action against the BC to force it to take action against breaches of bylaws.

This is from a ruling from an Adjudicator ruling in QLD:

In lieu I order that the body corporate take such positive and reasonable steps as it thinks appropriate to ensure that By-law 16 and By-law 22 of the scheme are known to, and complied with, by all owners and occupiers of the scheme.

Must admit I’m not sure what would happen if the BC ignored the ruling.

[Author]

Replies