[LawoftheLand]

Thanks for that Jimmy.

Not trying to starve the OC of any funds, just asking if we legally had to pay. So the answer is yes and that is fine, happy to comply with correct procedures.

[LawoftheLand]

Ok so the original rear fences are just a little wooden lattice criss-crossed design fence approx 1.2 metres high structually attached on top of the planter boxes. Planter boxes are set concrete and were not ever moved, just the lattice fence portion was moved back to the planter box wall closest to the lot which effectively (but not legally) became common property. The planter box formed part of the fence. So now they want the fence to be put back to the outer wall of the planter box nearest to the inner courtyard pathway as they were originally and according to the Strata Plans.  So if the quote is now for a slatted colour bond fence then this is different and far more costly – this requires a special resolution (75% vote). Yes the OC at the time (7years ago) paid for them to be removed, decided by the EC – not a special resolution – yes wrong there too.

The gates have not been removed. But they have suddenly crept into email corrospendence surrounding the fences.  The quote for the fences contains costings to replace the gates with the same colour bond slatted material as the fences.  Some of the gates are a bit chatty – but really just need a lick of paint. One owner complained that you can see through the gate but this is illogical as they are attached to the front of some ground floor units – you can easily see over the gate (at street level) and the adjoining concrete boundary wall into the front balcony anyway!

The front gates are all original and were on the building when built 10 years ago. Yes some ground floor units don’t have a front gate apportioned, some have a front gate and also a small rear courtyard with aforementioned fence, and some like me only have a front gate.  

I don’t know why there is a push to change the gates too when said ‘fence pusher’ doesn’t have one. I think it is just that the ‘fence pusher’ doesn’t like them.

So as with the fences, if the gates in the quote are not the same then it can only be determined by special resolution.  The EC can only decide to maintain the gates – by painting them or such.

In summary at both previous AGM’s there was never a special resolution – just a note in the AGM that the EC decided to remove them, then 2 years ago decided to put them back.  

So I need to inform the Strata that both need to be on the next AGM?

The old saying of “two wrongs don’t make a right” springs to mind.

[LawoftheLand]

Thank you JimmyT and Proudsceptic for your kind response. 

Ok, so the fences are common property.  But I will point out that they can not be seen by the outside as they are in the internal courtyard, I understand that this doesn’t change the fact they are common property.   

The second dilemma is that somehow the mysterious quote provided for the fences includes costs for replacing small front picket gates (which can be sighted from the front of the building) that lead into about 5-6 lots (mine being one) onto the balcony of some ground floor lots.  The gates were never raised or even reported at the time of deciding to re-align the fences, in fact the one pushing to have the fences back who provided the quote – doesn’t even have a gate! As I like my gate and maintain it I want the gate to stay.  The gates are also bound by a think black line on the plan so then they too are common property.

So is it correct that to change (whole different new gate) these gates, can only be done so by a special resolution? I am unsure but from the quote and cost provided it appears to be an entirely new gate. Wouldn’t this fall under significantly changing the appearance of the building?  

I understand that the moving of the fences was totally incorrect – and yes it was the owner’s responsibility for the said plants and planter boxes but at the time these complaints were addressed initially to a real estate agent (need i say more?) who managed most of them as rental properties, who in turn complained to the Strata and OC instead of addressing the problem with his tenants! This could have all been avoided so easily.

Thank you both.

[Author]

Replies