Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
To get the SM to issue a Notice to Comply you only need a simple majourityat a GM or EC meeting. To delegate the SM authority to issue a Notice to Comply without ref to the EC again you only need a simple majourity at a GM or EC meeting.
Don’t blame the Strata Manager (he is more accurately called a Strata Administrator) as he works for the strata and takes instructions from the committee and the OC. He generally he has NO power to take unilateral action unless instructed to do so by EC or OC.
If the committee won’t vote to act because of self interest then get the OC to pass a motion to act (this overides any EC decision).
Good luck with getting the council to act as I’ve no idea if it will work.
I agree it’s a grey area but I don’t believe everyone should have to participate in the loan IF they can provide their share of the funds up front (before the loan is applied for).
At a guess the interest rate will be 5-10% and as banks are only paying 4% at max on deposit accounts some owners could decide it’s better to us their saving than participate in a loan.
Why should these owners be denied this cost saving.
As for administrating this it shouldn’t be difficult for a competent SM to only bill those who didn’t front up with the money an extra levy per levy cycle.
@scotlandx said:
This is covered by the Dividing Fences Act – you need to serve a notice and if nothing works you go to mediation and then NCAT.I totally agree with you but it introduces an anomly.
The boundary fence is denoted on the plans by a solid black line indicating it’s common property so according to the Strata act it should be totally strata reasponsibility.
Also on our plans the boundary of all lots is again denoted by a solid black line, but some of these are fences between the lots and common property and some between 2 lots.
I belive the Dividing Fences Act should take precidence over what a maybe inexperienced planner drew at the conception stage to give a level playing field.
PS sorry about the spelling but no spellchecker on this shared XP PC.
@Whale said:
So you shouldn’t read too much into terms such as those that you highlighted in your post (#5), because if strata building policies really covered everything that a normal home building policy does, excluding shared facilities, then there’d be no need for specialised strata contents insurance and those normal home building policies wouldn’t specifically exclude any part of a building that’s part of a strata title.
I only have 2 policies strata insurance for the building (via Strata) and a bog standard contents insurance that covers everything that is removable when I leave.
I consider that I’m fully covered. Do you know something that I don’t.
@JimmyT said:
The intercom system will be part of common property unless there is a by-law to say otherwise. Electrical cabling to and including the internal fuse box will be the same.
The intercom system would be common property but the security system and the electrical wiring within the lot is the owners responsibility if it ceases to work due to normal failure.
BUT if the failure is caused by an insurable event then it becomes claimable on the strata insurance policy because these items are covered by the Strata insurance. So whether the damaged equipment is lot or common property is irrelevant if it’s a strata insurance claim.
Mind you proving the damage was caused by an electrical storm is a different matter and good luck to the OP on that one.
Your only choice is to start proceeding at NCAT against him personally because only the EC or Strata can issue a Notice to Comply.
This involves going to conciliation and then adjudication and cost around $200. It doesn’t matter who owns the car just that it is driven by an occupier who stays overnight on a regular basis.
Take photos (date stamped if possible) of the car in the Visitor parking bay and parked outside over a 7 day period and then randomly to show it’s not an isolated incident. If you can obtain a photo of him getting out of the drivers seat even better.
@Whale said:
The only “lot property” that Strata Insurance covers are those parts of a Lot that are considered to form part of the Common Property, and the cover for “lot owners’ fixtures” relates only to items that have been fixed in some permanent way to a part of the Common Property within a Lot by the Owner.
I’m sorry Whale but I disagree
From the NSW Act
82 Damage policy
(1) In this Part, a damage policy for a building means a contract of insurance providing for the matters referred to in this section in the event of the building being destroyed or damaged by fire, lightning, explosion or any other occurrence specified in the policy.
(2) A damage policy is to provide for the rebuilding of the building or its replacement by a similar building in the event of its destruction so that every part of the rebuilt building or the replacement building is in a condition no worse or no less extensive than that part or its condition when that part was new.Division 2 Insurance of buildings
83 Owners corporation to insure building
(1) The owners corporation for a strata scheme for the whole of a building must insure the building and keep the building insured under a damage policy with an approved insurer in accordance with this section.It is irreverent whether the items are attached to common or lot property they are all covered by the insurance.
Fitted kitchens, bathrooms, wardrobes, internal doors & walls, electrical wiring, pipes are all lot property and all are covered by the Strata insurance policy.
The Strata insurance covers everything a normal household policy would cover plus all the shared facilities.
Check your Strata Insurance Policy because that covers common property AND lot property if the damage was caused by an insurable event (the storm).
If the insurance doesn’t cover it then if it is lot property (fuse box within the lot) it is your responsibility.
The security system would be considered part of the fixtures and fitting on the strata Insurance policy.
@Gtsarvay said:
Our lease states ” the tenant agrees to have the carpets professionally steam cleaned and the property professionally fumigated for fleas inside and outside by a licenced pest control company, at the end of the tenancy.”thanks Tanya
I assume you organized the pest control company (not the agent or owner).
Does your agreement with the pest control company say that they are going to comply with the tenancy agreement if so it’s the responsibility of the pest company to sort out their failure to do a proper job.
As far as I can see you have complied with your tenancy agreement by paying for a licensed pest company who didn’t do a proper job (assuming it was a licensed company and not one of your mates doing it on the cheap).
If the agent supplied the pest control company and you just paid you have no further liability at all
@PeterC said:
Ah, that’s interesting. Does the ability in NSW for the EC to give a ‘licence’ for some use of common property have a broad application or is it just for parking?
If you look at the bylaw in NSW
2. Vehicles
An owner or occupier must not park or stand a vehicle on common property without the written permission of the owners corporation. That permission can
be cancelled. Permission does not give an owner or occupier a permanent right over that part of common property.So it just needs an ordinary motion passed granting permission by the EC or OC and similar wording is used in other bylaws as well so it does have broad application.
My feeling is that if they want to use common property they should pay to do so (with the exception of one off short term use).
Basically if the motion is properly approved then it is legal. The motion has to be approved at an AGM and the person (chairperson) must specify in their nomination to be on the committee that they will be entitled to the said remuneration and a breakdown of the remuneration must be supplied to all owners prior to voting the chairperson onto the position.
18 Requirements for nominations (for committee)
(2) A nomination must contain each of the following details—
(e) details of any payment to be made to, or to be sought by, the candidate from the body corporate for the candidate carrying out the duties of a committee member.
This is from Body Corporate and Community Management (Standard Module) Regulation 2008
It’s available online for download
and Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997
It actually beggars belief that owners would actually vote to give away 21K to a person when you are already paying a SM to effectively do the same thing. You need to do a mail out to ALL owners telling them they are going to be ripped off if this goes through.
@matt73 said:
What is there to stop false claims of what was there before or what has/has not changed, if there is no evidence of anything other than the pavers ever existing. When purchasing the property I was under the (allegedly false) impression that the pavers were the baseline.
Even if the pavers were originally installed by the builder their is no requirement for the OC to maintain them a Special Resolution to remove them is perfectly legal if the pavers are on common property.
Same rule applies to any other structure on common property, the exception being an original (or an approved) boundary fence (between lots or lots and common property) where the fencing Act comes into play.
Q1 Yes they can remove them as they were unapproved, they don’t need your approval (common property) but they cannot bill you for the work.
Q2 Just needs an ordinary motion to be approved to remove them.
Q3 Yes the EC (or the OC) can approve the repair (so long as the cost is within their limits).
IMHO the reason they don’t need a special resolution to make the changes is because the installation of the pavers is unapproved and they are just doing a repair to return the Common Property back to it’s original state.
Common property belongs to everyone and if they have the votes they can do what they like UNLESS you have been given exclusive use of said common property and that fact is recorded in the bylaws.
If they are within the property no problem (curtains and blinds are) the only issue MIGHT be if it affects the appearance of the lot from the common property. But as you say others have different window covering you should be ok.