Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
adammark I fundamentally disagree with Jimmy on one important aspect and that is that an adjudicator WILL take into account previous decisions of the EC.
I was unable to find an adjudicators ruling that supports my case in regards to improvements as their are very few ruling listed online in NSW.
I was able to find this
It’s regarding the pet bylaw but it clearly states that the adjudicator DOES take into account previous decisions of the EC and action or residents, and dosn’t just base his decision on the actual bylaw in isolation.
If you can find a ruling that supports your case you are virtually home and dried.
My opinion is they would have to show they have enforced this new policy on all requests since they took power to have any chance of making you comply as well.
OP = Origional poster
I don’t consider it fair and equitable that the EC can suddenly turn around and demand all these condition on alterations when previously it has turned ablind eye
UNLESS it address these previous violations first. Have any of these violations been done by people on the committee if so that makes the situation even worse (corruption).
I agree 2 wrongs don’t make a right but the EC needs to address the original alterations rather than ignoring them. The OP could claim precedence if he goes ahead without a bylaw unless they have addressed the original alterations.
Even if the OP spends thousands on doing what the EC requests their is still the possibility that he will fail to obtain a 75% majority to pass the new bylaw for his enclosure.
It has to apply the rules fairly to everyone and it cannot discriminate.
As to the opinion from the other forum he makes a good case and he has not been contradicted by anyone on that forum. How about a sol on here commenting on this option
… submit a motion to the EC for the upcoming EC meeting asking that all owners that have have made alterations without a relevant bylaw must within 2 weeks show that they intend to submit a relevant bylaw within the following 4 weeks covering said alterations.
Be interested to here whether it’s legal or not but it would be a solution to unauthorized alterations which presently doesn’t exist in NSW
OP submit a motion to the EC for the upcomming EC meeting asking that all owners that have have made alterations without a relevant byalw must within 2 weeks show that they intend to submit a relevant bylaw within the following 4 weeks covering said alterations.
Any owner that dosn’t comply and has made alterations the EC will have a bylaw drawn up at the owners cost and voted on at the next general meeting.
I have been informed (from another forum) that the EC can get a bylaw written to address these situations and bill the offending owner for the cost of having the bylaw written.
This seems to me to be an excellect soloution to the strata being lumbered with ongoing maintenace of illegal work.
If they decline to do this I consider that you have every reason to go ahead with your alterations without having a bylaw written.
If they agree to this just wait untill the bylaws are submitted and then you submit another bylaw (coppied from one of your 2 similar alterations) adapted for your unit.
@struggler said:
KP, if you could me a complex with honest owners who will do the right thing, please let me now as that is where is would like to live.So would I but at least in QLD alteration made to the property remain the reasponsibility of the lot owner (even if they didn’t obtain approval) and far more of the internals of the lot are lot reasponsibility than in NSW.
In a Standard Format strata with free standing homes in QLD the total building can be owners reasponsibility.
@JimmyT said:
Specific wording aside, – because that’s down to whoever drafts it – any special resolution exclusive use by-law will or should have clauses establishing that part of the trade-off for allowing exclusive use is that the beneficiary becomes responsible for the transferred properties’ upkeep.
I thinkyou are missing the point that Whale and I are making. At the moment in NSW unauthorized alterations can fall on the OC to repair the changes or restore to origional configuration.
Whales bylaw would reverse this generally for the strata complex such that any alteration not authorized and approved with a siuitable bylaw would remain the reasponsibilty of the current owner and subsequent owner to maintain (instead of at present defaulting to strata on sale). This would solve at least on of OP issues.
To me this seems so obvious that it should be included in the NSW gov model bylaws, then at least you have the likehod of it being included in 99% of any new strata that is registered as most use the model bylaws with a few additions.
@JimmyT said:
KP, I’m afraid i have to disagree with your figures. Just about every strata plan with which I’ve been involved has a special resolution by-law or two tucked away somewhere. It’s how we customise the ‘model’ by-laws to suit the specifics of each strata development.Are you telling me Jimmy that in NSW most strata bylaws include something like this
and a Special By-Law supported by a Register of Common Property Additions /Changes stating that any additions / changes that are not shown on the Register are unauthorised under S65A, and that maintenance and repairs of those are the responsibility of the present and subsequent Proprietor/s of the Lot/s concerned.
I think it’s an excellent idea and it would put the onus on the owners to obtain permission before doing improvements otherwise it’s their problem in the future (instead of strata).
I accept that most (99%) have various bylaws tailored for their situation which is different from the standard bylaws but I was referring to a specific bylaw as proposed by Whale regarding responsibility for unauthorized alterations / improvements.
I accept you know more about NSW bylaws than myself as I’ve only ever seen the standard ones but going by the issues this and other sites throw up it doesn’t seem common to me.
Maybe it should be added to the default bylaws so it applies everywhere unless changed.
Good return Whale but my problem is with
Well, the answer at my Plan is a really diligent Executive Committee, (hopefully) honest Proprietors who own-up if they’re the ones who made the alterations/ changes, and a Special By-Law supported by a Register of Common Property Additions /Changes stating that any additions / changes that are not shown on the Register are unauthorised under S65A, and that maintenance and repairs of those are the responsibility of the present and subsequent Proprietor/s of the Lot/s concerned.
The honest owners aren’t the problem because when situation is explained to them they will do the right thing. It’s the blodgers I’ve a problem with that will exploit the situation for all it’s worth and lie and cheat to obtain a result for themselves (I know because we have one).
Also the number of strata that have a special bylaw as you sugested would be less than 1% (I suspect) and even if they did manageing this register would be a nightmare IMHO and so only possible in a really well run Strata (which 90% are not)
Whale said
4) This is why your Owners Corporation should have Registered a Special By-Law with conditions or issued a written prior consent with conditions to each Owner who wanted to enclose their carports, because in the absence of conditions such as one about the Owners being responsible for on-going maintenance and repairs of the additions (i.e. the doors) then the Owners Corporation becomes responsible for that maintenance as the additions are by default deemed to be Common Property.I agree with everything you have said except this bit. The OC is ONLY responsible for returning the property to it’s original state (without any doors, just a carport) otherwise every man and his dog would be making alterations and additions to their property without permission on the understanding that it becomes common property and OC responsibility to maintain.
I cannot quote a source for this just my understanding of previous post here and elsewhere. If I’m wrong please let me know.
@chilliblue said:
Hi All– the strata plan and council records show that the property has carports. Several of these have been enclosed over time without any documented approval and now these owners want their doors replaced. The current agent has referred to some basic notes referring to doors and garage keys and has stated as such, despite what the plans state, they are common property. Is this correct?
–
If these were installed illegally without a corresponding bylaw stating who is responsible for the on going maintenance, the only duty that the Strata has is to return them to their original state (This only applies if owner requesting it is not the owner who installed it). If the owner who installed it is requesting it you can tell him to get lost as it was an illegal install and he (NOT Strata) has to return the structure to it’s original state.
It’s weird that once ownership changes in NSW it becomes Strata responsibility to restore the common property rather than the new owner.
Jacaranda is not a native tree so unless it has some special historical significence Tree Preseveration Order would not be applicable.
Owners can cut down branches of tree overhanging their property but cannot make neighbours cut down branches of tree that are exclusively on the their property.
If the tree has been their for 100+ years it obviously was their when current parties moved in and so they have no complaint as they new the situation when they bought their nice new property.
I suspect also a special resoloution is required for a strata to pursue legal action and this requires a motion passed by 75% of the owners. As their are only 3 all need to agree to this action.
Sorry Scotlandx I agree with Austman here the EC can grant permission for residents to use the common area without creating a new exclusive use bylaw.
Granting residents rights to use this area without creating a bylaw also means that if it doesn’t work out you just need another motion abolishing it.
Assuming the SM doesn’t have extra spending authority at every AGM you authorize a admin fund budget for the next year. Each line item is what you are authorizing the SM to spend on that item. eg budget $4,000 SM can spend up to $4,000 on insurance.
All spending not budgeted for in the admin has to be authorized by the EC or OR on a vote (can be postal or email if all members approve).
EC or OC can grant members authority to approve spending up to a particular limit (you can impose conditions such as all spending so authorized has to be notified to EC or OC before spending occurs).
In most strata situations the biggest mistake owners make is to assume the SM is a manager as in effect they just administer the Strata on behalf of the owners and have very little power (unless given it by the owners).
I agree you cannot wheel clamp or tow from common property or visitor parking bays, but this is actually ON your property that you are paying for so advise the offending owner in the nicest possible way that the next time your bay is obstructed and you require it you will be getting a tow truck to remove the offending vehicle.
Whether this is legal or not I don’t know ( but I doubt the offender would either) and the prospect of loosing his car might encourage him to stop offending.
Phone a tow company up and ask them what is the rules regarding removing cars left on your property. The will def know.
You might also suggest to your property manager a rent reduction for the parking space you are unable to use. This might make him contact the Strata to get some action against the offenders.
Police and council will not be interested, it’s strata responsibility.
You’ve got a current valuation look at your current pollicy which will show all the valuations you require.
Go online and search for strata insurance and you will be given a list of companies / brokers that supply this. Two big ones are CHU and Zurich.
Some of these allow you to input all the info online and then come back to you with a best quote.
Only info you might be missing is insurance claims for last 5 years (which you need to obtain from SM). I did this recently and left out this info as I just wanted a comparrison with current broker. SM knew I was doing this and his latest quote came in $1,000 lesss than he origionally told us which was less than my best quote so we accepted it.
Remember SM works for YOU and has to do what YOU (strata owners) tell them too and if you want to change your insurance company you can do.
Go to a recommended Strata Manager ask them for a quote for manageing your complex.
Ask your secretary to organise a general meeting to vote on accepting this new SM (or submit at next AGM).
Simple majourity will remove the offending SM.