Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@SMO said:
If anyone bothered to read the mountain of submissions regarding strata reform then they would know the issue was owners in existing strata plans not being able to get their OC to act reasonably.
The reform does nothing to address the issue.
If the owners cannot get the OC to act reasonably it is the fault of the owners as they are the OC. Bylaws can be changed at a GM or AGM by a vote of 75% (of those present) of owners in favour.
If you don’t have the support of the owners to pass a new bylaw or motion maybe you are a minority and want to force changes on the majourity.
I suggest you look at this ruling by CTTT as it is very similar to yours.
Basically the ruling was
1. Permission is hereby granted for the Applicant to keep a “bichon frise” dog on the subject lot provided the dog is kept wholly within the lot at all times, does not interfere with other occupiers reasonable peace and enjoyment of their lots and the common property. The dog is to be carried over common property when being transported to and from the lot from time to time.
2. This consent only applies to the keeping of this particular dog and not to the keeping of subsequent pets.
These conditions are pretty standard and so long as you are prepared to abide by them you should win your case.
If the bylaw had said no pets period you would have had a more difficult fight.
A resolution without dissent is only required when you are doing something drastic, changing unit entitlements, passing common property to a lot owner, etc and it should say in the WA Act what these situations are.
It’s a pretty safe bet that opening a bank account is NOT one of them, as it is such a trivial issue. I would say the SM could change the bank account without any vote whatsoever (and the SM should know this anyway).
The only situation where you MIGHT have a problem is if they registered a special bylaw specifying which bank to use. But even then a developer who controls all the lots initially has a duty of care to not do anything to prejudice subsequent owners, and I would say this fits the bill exactly.
I know nothing at all about WA strata this is just general info which applies to some state (NSW & QLD) but I suspect it would apply universally in Oz.
@andyj said:
Can you point me to the database or URL that I can find the original CTTT ruling and cite it correctly
andyj
The online database in NSW only holds about 500 Strata cases and they seem to del old ones when they add new ones using some convoluted formula to decide which ones to del.
In QLD we at least have about 10,000 but they do the same here. As storage is so cheap nowadays why cannot they just add new cases without del old ones.
@CWilson said:
Might this be defrauding the Owners Corporation? Might we not expect back rent at commercial rates for the use of this property?Definitely so.
Just make sure that his caretaking contract doesn’t allow him use of this area. If he is using common property he needs to pay a commercial rate to do so. At the very least you need to get the EC to issue him a NTC to stop using the area until he has agreed a price that he will pay for continuing use of the area and back rent for the last 10 years (not sure if back rent is feasible but he won’t know either and it might put the fear of god into him that he might have to pay $xx,xxx for past use of the area).
I’d consider this a repair rather than an improvement and so the EC could authorize (providing it’s within their spending limit).
Obtain a quote yourself and submit it to the Sec and ask them to put it to the EC to vote to accept the quote.
We have a similar system and all owners have full access to it for our Strata. If you don’t submit a motion to the upcoming AGM if your SM won’t give you access. You have every right to see what is being spent. I check ours at least once a month.
MOTION
Please give access to ALL owners to view and inspect all online documents, especially the financials.
@Dudley said:
Is it possible to request that all communication from Strata Manager to owners be via e-mail? I accept that all owners would have to agree to this.
Yes it is.
Remember the SM manager works for YOU and you can instruct him on how to do various jobs (providing it’s got the OC approval).
Think of him as the Strata Administrator (instead of manager) who carries out your instructions and advises you of the legal situation.
If he dosn’t like it find one who will comply with your wishes.
Strictly speaking if you are removing wall tiles on a common wall, or moving the position of the the water pipes (or power points) entering the floor or common wall you are doing an improvement and you require a SR passed by GM and are required to add a bylaw stating that you will accept responsibility for the repair and ongoing maintenance of the said improvements. In fact just hammering a nail into common property requires permission of the Strata.
In reality I would just tell (most people wouldn’t even do this) the EC that you are doing some minor (new kitchen bathroom) renovations within the lot which won’t affect others.
A lot depends on whether it’s a free standing villa or a huge tower block. I think trying to apply the same rules to both is ridiculous and creates a bureaucratic nightmare.
Also it depends on how strict your EC is regarding enforcing the bylaws (check how many Special Resolution bylaws have been added and what they were for).
The EC have to apply the rules fairly to everyone they cannot apply them selectively, so if other have been allowed to you have the same rights.
For a purely long term residential strata with no onsite manager you would be looking at $200-$300 per lot per year.
eg 10 lots $2-3,000 per year.
This is what roughly we pay anyway.
@Whale said:
If there IS a Special By-Law (SBL) in place covering the installation of tiles by Owners, then it will almost certainly contain something about who’s responsible for on-going maintenance, replacement, and repairs of those; usually the individual Lot Owners.
IF their is a special bylaw in place I believe it is the OC responsibility to cover the cost of replacing the tiles because the replacement is required due the the waterproof membrane leaking not the failure of the tiles themselves.
The lot owners who registered the bylaw should not be forced to carry the cost of relaying their tiles when the problem is purely an OC problem and to fix it requires removing tiles that the lot owner paid for.
As far as I can see you are complying with the bylaws so you don’t have a problem.
The architectural & landscape standards are something the developer initiated and you would only have a problem if the developer complained about your roof and all the other roofs in the suburb. This is not something the EC can enforce as it’s not in the bylaws nor are you in breach of any clause of the strata act.
JimmyT said
By the way, a seven-member EC is far too big for a block of 16 – three or five should be perfectly adequate. Reduce the numbers at your next AGM and take the opportunity to get rid of the land-grabbers.
How do you restrict the no on the EC as you are allowed 9 and if up to 9 nominate they automatically get appointed to the EC without a vote.
I’m no advocate of the “nanny state” either but as far as I can see a simpler solution is to pass the responsibility to the lot owners as the default situation rather than the strata.
Let the onus be on the lot owners (current or future) to prove that the Strata carried out the improvements to the common property in the lot and accepted responsibility for it’s ongoing maintenance (as in QLD).
The Strata should have access to the original drawings and plans and anything not on the plans that attach to a lot are the lot owners problem.
It doesn’t matter if the tiles are original or an improvement by the lot owners if you have to rip up the tiles to fix the waterproof membrane it is OC responsibility to restore the balcony tiles after the repair was done.
HOWEVER if the tiles were fitted without a SR and an appropriate bylaw you might be able to avoid the cost of replacing the tiles (except for those that do have an appropriate SR and bylaw). You then come to the problem of who fitted the tiles the current owner or previous owner.
Their are a couple of discussions raging at the mo on this subject.