Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’d assume from what you’ve said is that the leak was from a pipe within your unit and if this pipe only supplies your unit then you are responsible for the repairs to said pipe. Any damage to the structure would be covered by Strata Insurance policy, and your contents policy should cover the contents damaged in yours and your neighbors unit.
If the pipe supplies more than 1 unit then it is OC responsibility to repair and make good repairs via insurance for all the damage both to the contents and structure. (Strata Insurance might object to covering the contents damage so the OC might be liable for this if you don’t want to claim on your contents insurance)
I would also advise the secretary that an EC decision CANNOT override a AGM decision and that if the AGM decided not to increase security the EC cannot them decide to do the opposite unless they are prepared to accept that they (the EC members) could be liable for the cost.
This also applies to the Strata Manager and they (SM) could be liable for costs incurred that the AGM voted against if the Strata manager ignored the vote and did the upgrade anyway.
Remember The SM and the EC are responsible and accountable to the Owners and they have to obey instruction from them if the owners passed a legal vote.
I don’t fully understand your situation as a new Strata plan and bylaws can only be registered with the State once a Special Resolution has been passed. If this has not happened then anything this owner has done is illegal damage to common property and you can ask them to return the common property to it’s original state.
The only time the OC would be liable would be if a previous owner did the faulty work and then the OC would then be liable for the cost of returning the common property to it’s original state (and not repairing the faulty structure).
The OC is never responsible for maintenance of alterations done by owners unless it specifically states that is the case in the bylaw added at the time of the request for the change and registered with the state gov.
Don’t know about other states but in QLD if we have insurance excesses on the policy if the damage is to common property but only affects one unit (in this case) the owner has to pick up the excess and the insurance pays the balance.
If it is not being done through insurance and the current owner is the one who cut the doggy door surely he is liable for the repair as he did the damage. If it was a previous owner then with what has previously been said on other posts is that responsibility falls to the OC.
I also agree with what Whale says about doors and windows within the lot could be owners responsibility so check the plans (thick line on plan OC, thin lines owner responsibility)
carolyn get a quote from the roofing company who is doing the work to replace the roof of how much it will cost to insulate the roof, and then submit it as a motion to the OC alongside the quote to replace the roof. This is going to benefit half the owners and state you just need a simple majourity of votes cast for it to be approved (as this is an improvement a Special Resoloution might be required but just hope no-one else realises this)
You could also imply that if the OC dosn’t agree to pay the cost you will consider getting a CTTT ruling that it’s the OC duty to install insulation, and if you win it is going to cost considerably more installing it after the roof has been replaced than if the job was done whilst the roof was being replaced.
My opinion is your chances of winning are 50-50 (depending on how well you present your case) and it will cost you approx $150 to obtain a ruling.
Legally I don’t see how anyone can take action against you for passing on information regarding action that people are taking that involves breaking bylaws (illegal parking). You are just informing the culprits that they are breaking the bylaws and advising them of what action can be taken against them if they persist.
I doubt these letters would be considered official notification but they would count if the issue went to CTTT and offenders claimed they didn’t know they were doing wrong.
To be given exclusive use of common property a bylaw has to be passed with 75% of votes cast in favor of the motion and then this bylaw has to be registered with the state gov.
It might be an idea to have a word with the guy to advise him that he is altering common property and so far what he has done maintains the look of the property but if he does something out of keeping the EC is able to restore it to it’s original condition and bill him the cost and so it might be an idea to run any changes past the EC before doing them.
Because he is maintaining it he is saying the EC money and so you have to be careful otherwise he might stop doing it and leave it to the EC to maintain.
Totally agree with Whale and Jimmy’s posting.
As no agenda was provided to all the owners prior to any meeting, and no minutes of said meeting was again provide to all owners within the 7 days of the meeting, none of the decisions made were valid (these are required to enable owners to see what the EC are doing on their behalf and to keep the EC honest)
At the very least you should inform your SM NOT to accept any instructions from these 2 cowboys until the OC has decided what to do about recovering any illegal spending authorized by these 2.
Because the SM would not have been in the loop to receive EC agenda or minutes they most likely paid the bills on instructions from the 2 EC members not realizing that the procedures hadn’t been followed.
Maybe speak to the SM about recovering said money from the 2 members who illegally authorized it. I believe ANY owner would be entitled to do this if EC spends money without owners knowledge.
If they had sent out Agenda and minutes to all owners then the action of the 2 would have been legal. Do you have a SM or do you self manage.
Assuming she hasn’t been given permission to spend money on her own authority by the EC or OC in the past and that authority has not been revoked.
Get the SM to invoice her for the value of the cheque she authorised and then get the EC to advise the SM not to accept instruction from her in the future.
If the work is related to common property the quote needs to be voted on as per standard procedure.
How late were you with the payment because the legislation only allows penalties if you are more than 30 days late.
(2) A contribution, if not paid at the end of one month after it becomes due and payable, bears until paid simple interest at an annual rate of 10 per cent or, if the regulations provide for another rate, that other rate.
But once you are over this period
(1) An owners corporation may recover as a debt a contribution not paid at the end of one month after it becomes due and payable, together with any interest payable and the expenses of the owners corporation incurred in recovering those amounts.
So if you paid within the 30 days you are ok, but if it was more than 30 days it’s debatable.
The first thing you need to do is check the CURRENT bylaws and see if their is one specifying what the rules are for enclosing balconies in your strata. If their is a generic one so long as your enclosure meets the current bylaw you can just go ahead and do it.
OR if their isn’t a generic one are their numerous bylaws that all the rest of the owners have submitted individually to cover their own enclosure when it was done. If this is the case you will have to submit your current request in the form of a bylaw (similar to the others) and request it be approved.
If the EC refuse to approve your request without a good reason you can
1) Do it anyway and let them take action against you which they will more likely loose if others have been allowed the same thing. (not the ideal solution but it’s fast).
2) Start proceeding with a conciliation and adjudication action to force the EC to give you permission. Again I suspect you would win but time consuming and costs approx $150.
If their is no generic bylaw and no other bylaws referring to balcony enclosures it mans that they have been done without approval and you shouldn’t be denied the right to do the same. Your option would be the same as 1) and 2).
To be fair you could advise that you will give the EC 3 months to produce a new design and if nothing is approved by then you will continue with plans you have organized (and coppies submitted to EC).
Totally agree Whale.
But this shows you how to take action against anyone who is abusing the visitor parking bays even if it’s EC members that have voted to give themselves parking rights to the Visitor parking bays.
Another thing you could mention on the sticker is that if the offense continues the EC will consider having the vehicle towed include a tow company phone no and recover cost.
I KNOW this is illegal but I’m not proposing you remove the car just suggest that the EC will consider it. 99% of people wouldn’t know you cannot legally tow the vehicle and so unless your offender is in the 1% this should work.
@Whale said:
If Owners don’t want a parking By-Law enforced, then they can vote to repeal that By-Law at a General Meeting, and parking anarchy will likely result in you and other Owners not being to access the garages at all!
!
I totally agree with Whale except this bit.
The Visitor Parking bays are a local council requirement for the development to go ahead. The Owners CANNOT change the use of the Visitor parking bays without the council agreeing to it in writing.
The bylaws have to comply with ALL higher laws, council, city state or Commonwealth and if they conflict with any of these the bylaws lose.
I agree this argument hasn’t been tested at an adjudication in NSW (that I can find anyway) but I believe that any individual could take an offender to adjudication and win using this argument (even if the EC had granted the offender permission to park in a visitor parking bay).
I don’t give up easily here is a quote from a ruling in QLD which quotes the relevant bylaw and this has the same the same proviso.
A proprietor or occupier of a lot shall not effect any alteration or addition to the internal walls or structural feature of a lot without the prior approval in writing of the Body Corporate provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QBCCMCmr/2008/71.html
I know it’s QLD and it’s totally difference rules but we don’t know what adammark actual bylaws say in regard to this issue.
Also QLD has 8,000 online ruling whereas NSW has 1,000. I find reading the ruling gives a good understanding of how adjudicators make their decisions.