Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
No minimum sinking fund legally required in any state as far as I know and you don’t even need a sinking fund if you don’t want to.
I agree with Whale this is not a decision that the EC can make it needs to be agreed on by the owners and any change to the common property that affects you directly needs your approval. At the very least a Special Resolution is required for any changes to the common property (motion approved by 75% in favor).
If the SM stole your funds it should have been reported to the police as it is straight forward theft.
Also you need to look through your own records and try and find out which insurance company (if any) covered you at the time of the theft because their is generally cover for theft from Strata funds and so you could get your money back this way.
If your SM hadn’t been paying your insurance you are stuffed unless you can find this SM and take action against him for embezzlement in a civil court (expensive).
Your SM is correct the exclusive use parking bays belong to the lot owner.
BUT
the lot owner has to comply with your bylaws regarding use of this area and generally their is a catchall bylaw regarding the looks of the lot must be kept reasonable. Storage of items without Strata approval can cause a Notice To Comply with your bylaws be issued against the offender by the EC or SM.
Also storage of large amounts of paper would be considered a fire risk jeopardizing your Strata insurance.
Must admit the first link was very informative but it has confused me even more especially Example 7 and Example 8 because they show a solid boundary line around the whole townhouse (common property) whereas in QLD when the walls of my townhouse transition from the areas facing the common driveway to the private garden they switch to a thin line (indicating lot property).
So in QLD the walls facing my private garden are lot responsibility but the walls facing the common driveway are Strata responsibility (this only applies to cosmetic maintenance like painting anything structural is Strata responsibility).
This is the bit that confuses me from your link:
(2) Boundaries of all lots and part lots defined by continuous (i.e. unbroken) lines.
(a) boundaries which are defined by a structure must be shown by thick lines(b) boundaries not defined by structures must be shown by thin lines
Because these examples seem to have 2 boundaries one the structure and two the boundary enclosing the garden. How can a lot have 2 different boundaries?
Are the gardens and courtyard in the examples considered common property or lot property
When you say Strata Plan I assume you mean the registered plans lodged at the Lands dept which you can purchase for about $20 for your Strata. These should show a series of thick and thin black lines showing the boundaries of the lot and what is common and what is lot property.
I have the same problem in QLD and cannot get a straight ans from anyone because the plans of our Strata conflict with the act and I suspect they were drawn on a Friday afternoon after a liquid lunch. From everything I’ve read the plans are the definitive ruleing as regards common property and even though they don’t make sense you still have to abide by them.
I would love to discover this is not the case but I won’t hold my breath.
Have a read of the Boundaries section on this link
It’s for QLD but the convention on the drawing is the same throughout Oz it’s just the rules are different in different states.
One way around this issue of responsibility passing to the OC when a lot is sold in NSW would be to accept that the alteration is now the OC responsibility but when the new owner asks for it to be maintained because it’s common property is to tell the new owner that we won’t maintain it but we will remove it (at OC cost reluctantly). This would work for a/c installs and other additions to the lot because the owner is claiming it’s common property and so the OC have every right to remove it and restore the area to it’s original condition.
How many new owners who thought they could have unlimited maintenance on their unapproved additions only to discover that the only option that the OC will consider is removal.
Well the first thing you need is a motion that has been voted down proposing a special levy to pay for the repairs or a motion that voted against repairing the damage. This needs to be voted on by the owners (because the EC doesn’t have the authority to approve this level of spending).
Then you lodge a conciliation request with NCAT if that fails you lodge a Adjudication against the OC. Cost to you about $150 for lodging fees.
Yes you can take action against the OC and s 62 of the act sums it up nicely
62 What are the duties of an owners corporation to maintain and repair
property?
(1) An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of
good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal
property vested in the owners corporation.The disadvantage of going to NCAT is that the adjudicator might rule that the levy must be raised immediately whereas if the OC can compromise it can be done over x months.
@RL said:
Here’s a stupid example: I propose to put my own panel that covers 100% of the roof and to maintain it under S.65A. The OC has a “duhh” moment and votes in favour and the by-law is registered. Ten years later grid electricity costs $10 per kWh and solar panels cost a few cents, and the other owners would like to install their own solar panels. But there is still a special by-law that approves me having my panel covering 100% of the roof, and it can’t be revoked without my permission. Why would I relinquish the roof space?That is precisely the reason I would never agree to a SBL for this sort of thing.
Also what happens when the roof needs maintenance which require the removal of the panels and then the re installation, even with an SBL the Strata would be up for the removal and re installation costs because any costs associated with the repair to common property fall on the Strata.
I’m not to familiar with the legislation in WA but as a general rule you should take action against the Strata (owners corporation) for allowing owners to seize common property without permission and deny other owners use of said areas.
Their is generally a requirement in the Development Approval (DA) for a certain no of Visitor Parking bays and so even if the Strata wanted to use the bays for some other purpose they would require council approve before they could.
Legal action at the WA equivalent of NCAT would at least get the roller doors removed and force the resident not to use the visitor parking bays for their own vehicles.
Action against the SM is a waste of time as they are employed by the Strata and have no powers to make decisions without the approval of the strata, same apples to the Strata Company. You could take action against individual owners for stealing common property as an alternative.
@RL said:
Hi flatters,I want to install a solar heating panel on the roof of our multi-storey block, to heat my own apartment. The panel would heat air in the sun, pump it down a duct added to the outside of the building using a solar-powered fan, and into my apartment.
Must admit I don’t see anyway I would agree to this if I was asked to approve it in an apartment setting. This is space heating of the apartment and OP is planning on pumping heated air down the side of the building into his apartment.
Pumping air involves large capacity ducting which is going to be an eyesore running down the side of the building and also air is not a very good conductor of heat. How big is the collector going to be that is going to be heated mounted on the roof.
I’ve never heard of this sort of solar heating before using air as the conduction medium it seems to me it is going to be bulky and very inefficient. Also it only works when the sun is shining, not exactly the time that you really want space heating.
@thesculptures123 said:
If the Remote is a “key” then the new owner should be given a “key” that works in the first instance. After that it should be the owner’s responsibility. Two issues, Initial occupancy and continuing occupancy.
Yes I agree, if the strata gave you the remote it should be a working remote, if someone else gave you the remote your issue is with this person.
The reason why the key is the owners responsibility is a lot of strata are holiday lets or renters and so if the strata were responsible for the keys and remote just imagine if the holiday renters never bothered returning the keys/ remote when they left the strata would be lumbered with the cost of each replacement (some can cost $300) and so in QLD (and I guess the same applies throughout Oz) it’s been ruled that it’s the owners responsibility.
This makes sure the owner has in place a procedure to recover the key / remotes or else the owner has to cough up the cost of a replacement.
As Whale says for a purely residential complex the WH &S is not required and is not a legal requirement in NSW (applies to most states).
Their is nothing stopping you having one done or just getting the repairs done by the OC that you know are required (without a WH & S).
If you KNOW of a health and safety issue that the strata have been informed about your insurance for this issue could be in jeopardy (the same applies to a issue within your lot as well) whether you have had a WH & S done or not.
Submit a motion to the next AGM specifing
Their is a serious H & S issue with the XXX which needs fixing and I ask that the AGM authorize the EC to action the repairs within x months.
Now you have it on record what the issue is and you are asking the OC to authorize the EC to fix it.
If they vote the repairs down and you are so concerned you could go to conciliation and adjudication to get the repairs done.