Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 –
Source
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/
STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 1996
– As at 1 January 2014
– Act 138 of 1996
DICTIONARY
Part 1 – Definitions
” special resolution” means a resolution which is passed at a duly convened general meeting of an owners corporation and against which not more than one-quarter in value, ascertained in accordance with clause 18 (2) and (3) of Part 2 of Schedule 2, of votes is cast.
Cosmo is right but gives only half the answer
Quick answer
Options fix the railing to comply with current minimum or lock the balcony door
My Answer
You need to address the real issues (for a building registered as domestic use only)
- Is the building approved
- Any change to usage or structure may invalidate the current building certificate that was issued when built
- Legal liability
- If you provide an known unsafe environment for visitors are you legally responsible
- Work Cover does not care about anything other than its requirements and will fine you for having workers in an unsafe area
Most reputable contractors know and will not carry out work (including accessing the area) that affects the building but it is common that balconies gets tiled and that change is sufficient to be classified as a change to railing height and no longer approved as built.
In summary approved as built but not meeting current standard
- If you fall over it is only your fault as an owner
- If anyone (visitors, renters?) falls over you are legally liable for providing a known unsafe place
- No one has to fall over but Work Cover will fine you if the area is accessed by a worker
As the balcony railing is common property I assume the fines would go direct to the Owners Corporation?
Whale sorry about the confusion
I 100% agree with you on all issues bar one
You have given clear indication of the required rules that the EC should but did not follow THANKS
The next step is one that confuses me and clearly you are confused as to why I am confused.
I did believe that anything that had a downgrading effect of the value of my unit required my approval.
Hence the three different resolutions in simplicity
Majority Resolution (Neutral Change)
Special Resolution (Positive Change)
Unanimous Resolution (Negative Change)
But your replay was a special resolution can remove / change
Remove 90% of entrance lights
Remove 90% of garden lights
Remove 100% of lockable front foyer entrance doors (3)
Remove 100% of lockable rear entrance doors (6)
Remove 100% of the sound blocking features between the building and the highway
Turn off the external light at midnight with no means of turning on if wanted / required
The simple question was is there anything that cannot be removed under a special resolution
I thought all of the above has a negative impact of the value of my lot and would have required a unanimous resolution.
The only ones attending our AGM is the executive committee plus their friend’s proxies hence the outcome of an AGM will not change anything the EC has done.
This means a majority (special resolution) can remove all the features I purchased the unit for SECURITY and PRIVACY.
This is then clear there is nothing achievable by insisting the rules are adhered to and further actions are a waste of every body’s time as the end result will not be changed and all safety features will remain removed.
As the building now has changed to below my security standard and has lost value I now have to sell at a reduced profit.
I am not arguing about you being right I just refuse to believe I have lost so much value so quickly and so simply.
JT
You are right parking in property is difficult to control
Due to the many quirks in the relevant laws
Rather than addressing the parking there are two solutions that work.
First gate the access but as we all know this is a pain for all.
The second is the law about access to property that is not gated and like it or not but the general public has right of access, like the door to door sales person that can access all floors.
But here is the solution
Revoking the implied licence to enter is a simple matter, a simple sign forbidding trespassing is all it takes to prevent access.
Now by being on the property a criminal act has occurred and yes the police do act on criminal actions.
In fact all legal recommendations is do not fight the trespasser call the police
Genuine visitors display a sign including lot visiting or get the same treatment as trespassers.
Firstly thanks for all repliesSorry about the length but to clarify all questions
As it was a request for maintenance of broken items I did only raise it at the AGM as I thought it was only information that should be investigated and followed by properly maintained and did not expect any vote.
It is correct there is no item on the agenda for owners to say anything but I thought the simple advice of broken items should be minuted but was totally rejected and not minuted and no records even of the advice to address the EC
My written request was handed to the ECM before the meeting that is held directly after the AGM and accordingly was not on the agenda but made it into the minutes
Under other maters but no reference to my written request to have the locks maintained and my security concerns including that most entrance lights are not working globes removed and not replaced
Front entrance doors
Resolved that the strata manager arrange for tradesman to check that all 3 front entrance doors latch but do not lock
Consequently the locks where removed / replaced with non-locking fittings and not maintained
I know they (ECM) are saying as the locks where already faulty removing them is not downgrading security I did make a written request to the EC about a year ago and was advised security is an owner’s responsibility but did the second request to the strata manager at the AGM as I thought the EC was out of its …..
Under pretention of fire safety all entrance doors and corridor dors has had the locks removed not even considered for one way and again without any owner’s resolution. The building has 5 external doors and have an additional two corridors between the three stairwells that was originally locked in all directions and now the final locks has been removed on the front entrance doors in summary nine door locks has now been removed and several break and enter has occurred and the last sleeping in the stairwell was last Saturday.
I see solutions of special resolution but I thought any change that downgrades the value and I thought removal of security does just that and would require a unanimous resolution.
The EC has verbally indicated one reason the locks are not maintained is the then required intercom is to expensive
As there was no indication that the EC was informed by the strata manager of my request I e-mailed my request to all ECM but no mentioning in the following ECM Agenda only under business arising from minutes. The three front doors has been attended to
But in the minutes it made it under correspondence. Correspondence via E-mail received from owner of unit 20 regarding personal request for overdue maintenance and defects all points raised in the letter were discussed and actioned where required
Again no mentioning of the request or the actions taken
For info here is my written request hand given to the strata manager and then e-mailed to all EC
Please repair the following broken items without delay as it severely affects my family’s security and safety.
• Light bulbs missing in the entrance area
• Garden light not working in the entrance path to the building some removed without owners approval
• Front entrance doors no longer closing (reference: written request to ECM November 2011)
• Front entrance doors all locks in operational or removed without owners approval (reference: written request to ECM November 2011)
• Outside lights turned off after midnight with no physical means of turning on (reference: written request to ECM May 2011)
All items still to this day not actioned
Finally on the question of joining the EC the strata manager stated he would resign if I was elected hens not elected and he arranged that by stating it was agreed to have one member less than nominated hence only five were elected.
Regarding fire safety is only residential and registered 1971
But the council is making noise but no information has been passed down to the owners and as always not on the publish agenda as anything other than info distributed separately to the EC
The way I read the LAW
All attending the strata meeting can make their own minutes
Legally voice recordings can be used in this type of meetings to make the written minute
Unless specifically stated and accordingly if you mentioned it they will vote to forbidding you
But if not mentioned recording is ok
I understand that is how several secretaries make minutes
Refer
(First Print)
Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Child Window Safety Device) Bill 2013
Explanatory note
B2013-128-07.d08
Schedule 1 [7] …….after 13 March 2018
But who knows
It is the question who decides if removing a current feature is improving or enhancing the common property the feature may have different impact on different lots a tree may not give a privacy or sound blocking of passing cars for all lots and some owners may even think a tree is an unwanted maintenance cost.
Clearly any action other than maintenance must be under an owner’s resolution.
In our council area trees over a given size requires council approval for all actions and maybe it is neglect in the first instance of the owner’s corporation in allowing the tree to grow to that size?
If the Act (S65B) does state that a special resolution can give exclusive access to common property then the majority (75%) can make all common property out of bound for the minority and in new dwellings that would include but not limited to:
- Stairwells
- Balconies
- Garden
- Driveways
- Visitor parking’s
- Entrance area
- Lifts, Elevators
This could lead to preventing access in or out of a lot!
Or does the word MAY have implied limitations set out in other sections or laws?
Hi Ferris
I am not an expert but the advice given to me was from one.
At the time the significant information was the original Strata Titles ACT No 68 1973
I think this was the section referred to:
58
(9) The proprietor for the time being of a lot in respect of which a by-law referred to in subsection (7) is in force—
(b) is, unless excused by the by-law, responsible for the performance of the duty of the body corporate under section 68 (1) (b) (i) in respect of the common property, or the part of the common property, to which the by-law relates.
The change occurred in the Strata Titles ACT No 147 1987 Act
SCHEDULE 1—AMENDMENTS TO THE STRATA TITLES ACT 1973
CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN RELATION TO COMMON PROPERTY
But as in all cases if there is a dispute of significant costs get professional advice some that replies on this web are but I am not.
I had the same concerns as you after reading this tread before your entry and raised
– See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/common-property/old-but-current-versus-new-responsibilities/#p10230
That does not answer your question but should help
Just Get On With It
Seems to be right but there is one exception
Early Strata Acts stated exclusive usage did make the user responsible for maintenance without statement in the by-law, it is only new by-laws that states who is responsible
I can’t recall the year of the change but I think it was in or after 1975
Early by-laws for exclusive….user responsible without any statement
Later by-laws for exclusive ….states who is responsible
Two things
First
AS long as the site mixes professional comments with public comments unless you know treat them all as public comments.
Second
The NSW law is clear you cannot enter a private property without permission, the strata act intention is equally clear you can only enter to maintain common property that is accessible from inside the lot.
65 Can an owners corporation enter property in order to carry out work?
As the work is not carried out or need access from inside the lot no entry is allowed.
Or in plain English he is not entering to carry out work in the lot or from inside the lot
The fact that the easiest access to the location is through the lot is irrelevant especially as there are other options.
Can the gardener with the lawn mower walk through the ground floor lot as it is easier than walking round the lot as after all he is going to maintain common property?
Common sense should as well be applicable like the difference between changing one or two tiles too totally re tiling a large area
I believe not, as all they are asking for is to go through your lot to access common property on the other side of your lot that is accessible from the other side, you may have exclusive use to the common property but it is outside your lot not inside and is accessible from the other side.
As an owner you are paying your share of the cost hence allowing them access would save you ….but no one can force you to let them have an easier access by going through your lot.
What are next? are they going to paint the outside of the building through your windows to save on scaffolding?
We all on this site have opinions do not trust anyone seek qualified advice if you do not want them walking through your lot.
- Is the building approved