Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
This neighbour who had these improvements approved at the AGM via ordinary motion (??), it should have been a Special Resoloution and SBL registered to confirm that the owner would be reasponsible for the ongoing repair and maintenance of these items. Check the bylaws you recieved when you purchased the property and see if their are any SBL listed.
You say most screen doors are of differing designs implying they were installed individually by the owners rather than the OC (their should be SBL for these as well).
Even if you paid for an EGM what is too say enough will turn up for a quorum or vote to approve your motions (some SM charge $1000 for this service) which would require 75% in favour if the change is to common property (screen on front door)
Find out who is on the EC (listed in the AGM minutes) and try and get 50% to sign a request for an EC meeting to vote your items. I know the EC cannot authorize changes to the common property only the OC can with a 75% vote but I doubt this OC know that (especially if no SBL are registered).
Failing to get a reasonable response from the OC, EC or SM advise them that unless you get a timeline for action within 7 days you will be going ahead with the improvements without approval due to it being a safety issue (burgulary risk).
You cannot go to CTTT to argue your case because you don’t have a motion that has been voted down otherwise I would recommend this route.
I don’t belive they can discriminate against you if others have been allowed free reign and if they took action against you at CTTT you would have plenty of evidence of your reasonableness and OC unreasonableness, as well as evidence of others having done what you are requesting.
I don’t belive that a SBL is required either, but you could humour your SM by writing one yourself and getting it approved and then tell the SM to register it. (cost approcx $100).
SM works for you and he has to do what you say (so long as it’s legal) and their is absoloutely nothing in the act that requires ANY bylaw to be written by a solicitor. Could be he is not computer literate and so that is his problem.
@Whale said:
One point of clarification regarding the insurance of “lot owners fixtures”. That’s a top-up cover provided on a per Lot basis which only comes into play if the value of a Claim exceeds the total sum insured for the Plan; like in the circumstances of a total loss. As I understand it, a “lot owners fixture” is defined as a structural improvement made by a Lot Owner and fixed to the Common Property, such that if the item was removed, then the Common Property would be left in a damaged state.
I dissagree with your interpretation Whale here is the quote from my insurance policy
Lot Owners’ Fixtures and Improvements
means any fixture or structural improvement, other than Floating Floors, installed by a Lot Owner for their exclusive use and which is permanently attached to or fixed to Your building so as to become legally part of it, including any improvements made to an existing fixture or structure.It’s designed to allow owners to make improvements to their lot without keep going to the insurance company and getting the valuation increased. So that if they fit a top of the range kitchen in place of a standard kitchen so long as it is within the limit it is automatically covered by the current insurance policy.
I also dissagre with both you and Jimmy that a bylaw is required as the paving and gazebo are installed in the exclusive use area and not even att (prehaps) to the property and so it is totally the lot owners reasponsibility to maintain even after lot is sold. Strata is only reasponsiible for maintaining common property, not addon within the lot. eg a fitted kitchen that was worn out and need replaceing is totally lot owners reasponsibility NOT Stratas.
Dogears you need to clarify whether the garden space of the lot is actually common property or exclusive use garden. I assumed it was exclusive use.
This won’t affect the insurance liability or claim but it will affect the ongoing maintenance of the gazebo.
If we are talking about a Strata building Insurance claim the rules apply the same throughout Oz (because it’s too difficult for the big insurers to have different rules for each state).
It’s the owners job to inform the SM of any significent increase in their buildings value.
BUT most policies have a section called LOT OWNERS FIXTURES and a value (mine is $25,000) and so if my total improvements are less than $25,000 I’m automatically covered. If the improvements are more than this the SM needs to increase the insurance value of the lot (owner pays).
If the retaining wall failed for any reason, (lack of maintenance or valid insurance claim) the Strata would be reasponsible for the repair of all the damage caused.
Sounds to me the failure was due to lack of maintenance so not an insurance claim so Strata would have had to pay for everything.
I understand the process of a Strata loan for major expenditure but what I would like to know is can some owners opt out of participating in the loan and instead pay the required contribution for their lot, hence avoiding having to pay interest on the loan.
If certain owners have the cash available to cover a special levy can they just pay it and not have to participate in the loan or once a loan is approved by the OC does everyone have to participate.
I would imagine this would apply the same throughout Oz not just in NSW.
It doesn’t matter where the owner lives because the debit is not against the owner but against the lot. Also you should be charging interest against this debit of 10% per year to the lot owner.
I feel you need to start proceeding against the lot owner in the courts (with a solicitor who specializes in debit recovery). All costs that the Solicitor incurs are claimable against the lot owner.
If the lot owner ignores all attempts to communicate the courts will eventually decide to sell the property and deduct all charges and costs (including the Strata debit) from the proceeds of the sale before forwarding the balance to the lot owner.
Even if the owners sells the property privately the strata debit remains with the new owner and the new owner will have to cover the 15K debit (plus costs).
One of the jobs of a conveyancer is to make sure their are no debits on a property their client is buying and if their is withhold enough of the sale price to cover the debit.
Shame you are not in QLD as here the interest rate is 30% which really makes their eyes water.
I don’t see this being a strata building insurance issue at all, but check your product disclosure statement from the insurance co (it’s downloadable from their web site).
It’s a straight forward damp issue which is the strata’s problem and they would use sinking funds to pay for the repair.
If you get no joy from the EC get a quote yourself for the cost of the repairs and then submit a motion to the SM to get the repairs done based on your quote (paid for by the Strata). Invite the Strata to also obtain a second quote and the the OC would then vote on which quote to accept.
If they refuse to accept responsibility you will have to take it to CTTT but it should just be a formality to obtain a ruling in your favor.
I agree with Whale you are up for the cost.
BUT
If you obtained approval to install the tinting (from EC or OC) by having a ordinary motion passed and no bylaw or conditions were included in the motion, then you have the strata permission and as their is no acceptance of ongoing maintenance from yourselves, then it would the the Strata problem to restore the tinting IMHO.
This to me seems a huge problem with strata law in NSW.
Must admit I don’t like it but I agree with Whale & Jimmy the OC is up for the cost.
You need to get a bylaw registered that states that any alterations to common property are the responsibility of the lot owner (and subsequent lot owners) unless the OC has voted to accept responsibility for the changes.
This won’t help in this case but once registered should provide a solution. This is the sort of general bylaw that SHOULD be written by a lawyer.
The EC couldn’t authorize this as it is an improvement and so requires a 75% vote in favor by the OC to install it. So you must have had your chance to contribute to the decision when the vote was taken.
Also it is not the system that is at fault just a few of the sensors and so it will be relatively easy to fix by just replacing the faulty sensors with others that do work properly. If this is a new installation it should be covered by the warranty so get the EC (or yourself) on to the installer to get the faulty sensors replaced.
I believe it is the OC responsibility to organize an inspection at the request of an owner
Provided:
That if the inspection finds no problem or problem is caused by owner he should be billed the cost of the inspection. This is to stop frivolous claims from owners for needless inspections and make owners responsible for their actions.
If it is a real problem for the OC they pick up all the bills.
This is the relevant section of the act
65
(3) In an emergency, the owners corporation may enter any part of the parcel for those purposes at any time.
(4) In a case that is not an emergency, the owners corporation, may enter any part of the parcel for those purposes with the consent of any occupier of that part of the parcel or, if the occupier does not consent, in accordance with an order of an Adjudicator under section 145.The Chairman and EC members may have no experience BUT it the the EC or OC that have to authorize repairs (NOT the SM). You can contact the insurance firm direct and ask them to send an assessor.
If the insurance firm refuse you need to get an independent inspection of the problem and an estimate of cost which you present to the EC. If they refuse to do anything about it you need to go to CTTT to force them too (if you have valid case).