[kiwipaul]

@Matthew said:

Sorry, forgot to add I live in WA.

Ignore everything I said in this thread as it applied to NSW and my comments were based on NSW Strata Law.

It’s critical that if you are NOT in NSW you clearly specify were you are or the advise is meaninless.

[kiwipaul]

Before you start spending hundreds or $ getting a bylaw professionally written get a copy of your current bylaws and see how many Special Bylaws are already registered, compared to how many alteration you can see or know about (I would guess their will be very few) within your complex.

The bylaw for these sort of small renovations just need to specify that you accept responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the renovation, simple as that.

In fact why not add a bylaw that states that you will accept responsibility for the repair and maintenance of all renovations and alterations you make to your lot. That way one bylaw covers you for future changes (subject to EC approval) as well.

Also when you register bylaws the cost is the same for registering 1 bylaw as it is for 10, so wait until others have a bylaw to register and do them all in one go and only pay 1 fee.

 

[kiwipaul]

@Matthew said:
Gday,

Our Developer, who still owns one unit (out of 14), has it written in to the Schedule 1 by-laws that he has the right to bypass the election process providing he nominates properly for election at our AGM.

Any thoughts?

The bylaw that he has passed is illegal as it conflicts with the act Sch 3 Part 1

2 Constitution of executive committees for strata schemes with more than
2 lots
(1) This clause applies to an owners corporation for a strata scheme comprising more than 2 lots.
(2) The executive committee is to consist of such number of members, being not more than 9, as the owners corporation may determine.
(3) The members of an executive committee must be elected at each annual general meeting of the owners corporation.

Therefore it is invalid, so he can only be on the EC if he was voted on, he cannot demand a reserved place. Even if he was on the EC by being nominated and their were fewer nominations than places, if you followed the correct procedure to remove him you are ok.

[kiwipaul]

From my understanding if you have a CTTT ruling but the EC are splitting hairs you can then go to a Tribunal with this new information (more extensive damage than first realized) and get a further ruling from them to compel the EC to completely fix your bathroom.

When you go to the tribunal make sure you take a quote for the full cost so that if the tribunal finds in your favor they can tell the EC to authorize the repairs based on the quote immediately (make sure you invite the EC to obtain a second quote if they wish).

Also tell the EC what you are doing and that you willl also be asking the tribunal to impose a fine on the EC for failure to comply with the original ruling (up to $5,500). This threat might make them comply without the need to go through with it.

 

[kiwipaul]

Even having signage doesn’t mean you can remove the illegally parked vehicles. It’s a nightmare for people in this sort of situation.

Not to sure about the law in Vic but generally you cannot tow away (or clamp) a vehicle without the owners consent.

You can get around this by having a bylaw allowing you to tow or clamp but this would only apply to residents of the complex. This is because the residents have agreed to comply with the bylaws and so if the bylaws say you can tow the residents have given implied consent to have their vehicle towed.

This would not apply to non residents and so you are stuffed.

 

[kiwipaul]

The OC is responsible for the structural integrity of the apartment and so they will cover the cost of the repairs and anything they damage or remove to effect those repairs they need to restore to their condition, before removal.

I suggest you take plenty of photos of the kitchen before they start work to have evidence if the final fit out is not up to scratch.

Not sure whether the OC would be liable for your accommodation costs during the repairs.

But unless the OC has a written agreement signed by you that you will cover some of these costs they are on to a looser.

 

[kiwipaul]

@just get on with it said:

I have no idea how one could possibly prove that a broken glass door was caused by a rugby tackle demonstration as I am sure the resident would be unlikely to own up…

Thats why the excess should be picked up by the resident (owner or tenant) who put in the claim (assuming it’s part of their lot) to encourage them to be more careful.

Where is the sense of personnel responsibility if any damage is going to be picked up by others.

[kiwipaul]

The discussion about the Strata insurance liabilities for the different states is actually irreverent, because the Acts are only a min requirement that the insurance has to cover. The important document is the product disclosure statement (PDS) that the insurance company use to determine what is covered.

Because each state has slightly different interpretation of the Strata insurance liability in that state, the big insurance companies have decided that it is too complicate complying only with each states rules, so they have crafted a policy that is Oz wide and equals or exceeds each individual states insurance requirements.

So if you obtain a PDS from your insurer it doesn’t matter which state you are in the same PDS covers ALL states the same (except for this minor exclusion paint and wallpaper in NSW only). So my policy in QLD will cover exactly the same items as the same policy in ACT, WA, NT, and NSW.

I’ve checked the PDS of both Zurich and CHU and neither are state specific. This is obviously to simplify administration and require one help desk with one set of rules.

Why cannot the Commonwealth Gov insist on the same simplicity.

 

[kiwipaul]

@ccgirl said:

Obviously changing the Strata Manager is a long term solution, but what can be done in the short term?

Why is changing your SM a long term solution, speak to a few SM and get them to give you a quote for taking over the job. A simple majority at a GM or AGM to accept a new SM is all that is required (check contract details of current SM).

As for the work get someone on the EC to obtain quotes and vote to accept whichever is best, advise all residents that the plumber is coming on x day and tell the SM to pay the bill when it is presented.

[kiwipaul]

If you have something similar to the default bylaw:

16. Keeping of animals
An owner or occupier must not keep an animal unless they have the written permission of the owners corporation. The owners corporation must not unreasonably refuse permission to keep an animal.

Has she been given written permission, if not submit a motion to the EC or GM such as

I propose that all pets within the complex that don’t have permission be given 28 days to obtain BC approval as specified in bylaw 16.

The minimum conditions relating to being granted permission to keep a pet are:

1. Animal does not cause a noise nuisance (no barking) or smell.
2. Does not cause any mess anywhere on the common area or areas outside the complex to the front or side of the property.
3. Dog is kept under control and on a leach whilst on the common property.
4. Any cat be kept within the lot and not be allowed onto common property or other lots, without that lot owners consent.

Must comply with all NSW regulations concerning pets

Any owner given permission but failing to comply with the conditions will be asked by the committee to remove the pet within 28 days.

Or something similar that suits your requirements. If they have been given write permission without any conditions

 

Then you would have to use:

9. Depositing rubbish, etc on common property
An owner or occupier must not throw rubbish, dirt, dust or other materials on the common property that may interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of another resident.

If you have a similar bylaw.

[kiwipaul]

@Whale said:

A point of clarification on some earlier posts though, fixtures such as built-in wardrobes, kitchen, laundry and other cupboards are the responsibility of Lot Owners, BUT if they’re fixed to a common wall, floor, or ceiling AND they’re damaged due to a defined event, then subject only to a denial of responsibility (for some exceptional reason) by the Owners Corporation’s Insurer, they’re covered by that (building) Insurance.

I’m afraid I believe you are wrong here as it doesn’t matter whether the fixtures are fitted to a common walls or lot wall they are still covered by the Strata insurance.

The NSW Act dosn’t make it as clear as the QLD one does

(2) The body corporate must insure, for full replacement value, each building in which is located a lot included in the scheme, to the extent that the building is scheme land.

(3) A policy of insurance taken out under this section—

(b) must provide for the reinstatement of property to its condition when new.

This is from the QLD act but I believe it is universal throughout Oz.

[kiwipaul]

@JimmyT said:

Now, I know the Memorandum isn’t law and it has a few quirks but it’s a pretty clear indication of how the powers that be think.

Now if we were talking about general maintenance you would be correct, but insurance is different and the memorandum is irreverent in this situation.

Here is a quote from the NSW Strata Act

81 Building
In this Part, building includes:
(a) owners’ improvements and owners’ fixtures forming part of the building other than paint, wallpaper and temporary wall, floor and ceiling coverings, and

I’m sure a lot of people are confused about this and the insurance are quite happy for them to be confused so they over insure on their contents for things already covered by the Building insurance.

[kiwipaul]

@kiwipaul said: Even if the door was an internal door (not common property) the Strata building insurance would still cover it, but the person who damaged it would be up for the excess.

Really?  Down here in NSW an internal door is the owners’ responsibility and their home and contents insurance might cover it but the pretty sure the building insurers wouldn’t touch it.

 

I disagree the strata building insurance covers Common property AND lot property, providing it’s a fixture and fitting, which would include all doors, fitted cupboards, fitted kitchens and bathrooms, etc. The contents insurance would only cover the items within the lot that you could easily remove (furniture, clothes, personnel items).

The Strat have a responsibility to insure for the total rebuilding of the lot not just the common property to it’s original condition. I’d be very surprised if your lot was missing internal door, no fitted kitchen or bathroom or any internal walls when it was originally sold by the developer and this is what the building insurance covers (their are a few exception like carpets and curtains not covered which is state dependent).

This applies throughout Oz IMHO.

[kiwipaul]

Surely if you are going to spend Strata funds on repairing lot property (windows within a balcony) then you are going to require a no dissent vote to be able to use these funds for a purpose for which they weren’t authorized (otherwise any lot owner could go to CTTT and win a case of misuse of Strata funds).

Also the ongoing maintenance would then fall on the Strata as the strata paid for and installed the windows, and so you would need a bylaw clarifying this issue.

I feel that Strata should cover the cost of Common property and individual lot owners should cover cost of windows within their lot.

 

[kiwipaul]

I cannot find anything in the NSW act that refers to the insurance excess, but I would agree it is a Strata responsibility to pay for the replacement of the door, and if they claim on their insurance I would think it quite reasonable that the person who broke the door pay the excess. This is how it works in QLD if the damage only affects 1 lot (even if the damage is to common property as in this case).

Even if the door was an internal door (not common property) the Strata building insurance would still cover it, but the person who damaged it would be up for the excess.

 

[Author]

Replies