Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Agree with you on both points – the SM could block the name of the individual who complained and just send you the complaints itslef (unless it was just a verbal complaint).
At the moment, this just sounds like some each-way-bet to enforce their notion of a ‘trial period’; they either need to state that you can keep the cat or not.
Hi Jacky
Regarding the frosted glass, possibly not, although it can alter the amount of natural light that penetrates a room, which could have an impact.
However, enclosing the balcony can change the fire-rating of a building, affect the amount of the light/ventiliation entering the adjacent rooms of your apartment and of course, quite potentially include an additional ‘habitable’ space which deviates from the original plans in the DA. This may have had an effect on the issuing of the occupancy certificate.
I hope you had council approval to enclose the balcony, as EC approval only is probably not sufficient; the issuing of an occupancy certificate to the developer hinges on the building conforming to certain standards upon completion – the enclosure is unlikely to meet that requirement.
I’m fairly sure the same laws apply to all schemes (3 lots and upwards) with regard to the sinking fund and how those funds are managed, as well as the compulsory 10 year plan.
I know that small schemes (2 lots) can be exempt from your points above, but that certainly is not your case.
Threaten to hit the Strata Agent with the 20 penalty units under Part 4 37 (5) and see if they even know what you’re talking about
To your other questions:
- 75A should apply to your scheme;
- The strata agent can suggest reduced numbers to the EC, but unless you have all voted to give some very strong powers to the strata agent, then they have no right to this on behalf of the OC;
- The EC represents the OC at all times. For probity’s sake, the EC/Strata Agent should document all items spent. How that documentation occurs is a matter for each scheme. Some have certain $ limits prior calling an EGM, other mundane items for day-to-day repairs can be approved via 50% of the EC on email, for instance. There is still a trail, but it won’t necessarily be minuted for you to see during each EC/AGM. Past EC members should not be involved in spending the OC money;
- The budget of the EC is the budget of the OC. This is determined by your total levies collected each year, as determined by the AGM;
- GST is nation-wide: if your levies notice says ‘Tax Invoice’ then yes, it needs to show the amount of GST, and if it has GST, then it must have the words ‘Tax Invoice’. Prospective buyers, however, are not paying levies, therefore strictly speaking they need to ask whether the amount is Inc or Ex GST.
Hope that helps
Both Strata law and common law exist side-by-side.
Your question is a common law one.
I am going to assume that neither the EC nor the SM are the ones doing the bullying….
So all other cases would have first had to go before the courts to determine an instance of bullying occurred or a systemic pattern of bullying occurred within the strata scheme. During that time the court may involve the EC and SM. Even if these individuals are cleared of wrongdoing, the insurance may choose not to pay costs based on what it believed the EC ought to have done with respect to the WHS act/good faith, etc in which instance there starts to be this notion of ‘personal liability’ that the website lists.
Realistically, for the statement to have much stick, the scheme would need a building manager or other permanent employee that bullied residents, or the EC bullied residents, etc, etc. In short, it is a very grey area.
I can’t see too many instances of where a dispute between neighbours or exclusion by the SM would end up as shared liability for individual EC members, which is what I think your question is ultimately asking.
The EC must abide by the law when maintaining common property, it is that simple.
I would write to the EC stating that unlicensed electrical work is being carried out in the building, and that as they are aware of this and have condoned its practice, the buildings insurance is at risk. It is not just from potential electrical fires; shock, plant and equipment damage/failure, etc would all be void. You would also have a devil of a time trying to re-insure the building.
Additionally, point out that the insurance that covers office bearers would also be void as they acted outside the law. That will then ensure each of the EC could be personally liable for any costs, and, in the event of electrical shock resulting in injury or death, it could even be a criminal liability.
Ask to have this included in the next EC meeting to ensure that it is tabled, but I think that once the EC realises that they will liable you should see the issue stop
I would tell this individual of the neighboring strata plan that the issue has been sorted out to YOUR satisfaction and leave it at that. Based on the limited useful info she gave you when making the complaint, she deserves no more. You are certainly under no further obligation, as you are there as a witness to the supposed ‘noise’ of the two year old as well.
As the wooden floors are part of the structure, then it will likely be the responsibility of the OC to fix (one caveat: if your building is not a new warehouse conversion, then given the age of your building you will need to check the particulars of the scheme, particularly if you are in a company title building)
Hopefully this piece of legislation is designed to be a ‘catch all’ and the interpretation of ‘adjacent’ means the actual common property walkway/firedoor that is used to access the fire stairs which of course means the owners corporation rather than the flat closest to the fire stairs.
In addition to the commercial lots, I can only think of some old warehouse style apartments which also have the New-York style window fire escapes that this individual lot owner responsibility might be applicable to.
But I would be interested to see how your contact interprets this….Let me state again that 99% of most ECs are made up of volunteers. Of that, the greater number of strata schemes have a Strata Manager who oversees most work orders and often steers the EC towards certain contractors (I would be more worried about this if I were you). The fact that an internet forum is replete with poor examples is par for the course: I doubt flat-chat would be as popular if its mandate were to only post ‘glowing’ examples of strata living….
The examples you have provided in your last post cannot ordinarily be decided upon by a single ‘EC’ member; they usually either need a percentage of the EC to approve (in the case of work being done to a certain dollar value), or need to go to the OC at an EGM/AGM in the case of scrapping existing contracts or awarding lucrative ones.
If you believe your EC is made up of both corrupt and/or individuals, then as a member of the OC (an authority higher than the EC), there are many ways to address the issue and this forum has given many different pointers on how to do that; they vary from simply attending every EC meeting, being on the EC, challenging the EC to prove how contracts were awarded, having a ruling applied by the tribunal to dismiss the EC and appoint a manager, etc, etc, etc.
Getting things done in Strata is often hard enough with a law that compels an EC member to declare each and every potential conflict.
There is some merit to the idea, but the reality is that it’s a moot point: at worst case, I would have assumed that each individual member of the EC has only his or her own interests at heart and that the value of their property is the over-riding driver for any decisions made.
Even at best, an EC member, still having regard for the value of their own investment, simply understands that a well run strata scheme helps the value of that investment grow: this type usually makes fairer decisions.
Furthermore, each EC member is a volunteer – they needn’t declare a thing…a good Executive Committee (emphasis on the plural) will balance individual needs with those of the scheme when making decisions for the OC.Firstly, my thoughts are with the survivor, and the families of the two students, and the residents of the building whose lives have been turned upside down. This is an absolute tragedy.
Self-certification should never be allowed: I can only hope that it is scrapped soon as it is a preposterous situation that will always be to the detriment of strata dwellers in the short and medium term.
As to the SM somehow being responsible, they can only act with the instruction of the OC; most newly appointed SMs would undertake an audit and then make recommendations to the EC. Generally the EC will baulk at the costs and a plan is drawn up giving the most urgent items precedence. In the case of new buildings, this involves litigation and therefore it becomes a lengthy process. The onus for poor development sits with the developer, not the SM, but, assuming the developer didn’t set up a Phoenix company it still requires a very persistent and vigilant EC and SM to chase the developer, so you have an additionally flawed situation (unpai volunteers and a professional who can mostly only ‘advise’ ) trying to rectify the rubbish of shoddy development work and self-certification.
There has to be a better way…..
In addition to what Jimmy says, be prepared to compensate the owner in that instance. There is a formula for calculating how much a lot owner must pay the OC when improving common property (eg when installing a picture window to get an ocean view) but I’m not sure if/how that would work in reverse in addition to any other market compensation needed
In all honesty, the OC should bear the costs: if not for the full repairs themselves (the best option for them to take), then certainly the cost/excess for you to open your insurance claim (the minimum option they could take).
Hi She11e
It certainly sounds like your EC are acting on getting the repairs done to common property, so kudos to them.
As to the act, it only states that the repairs/maintenance should be reasonable: from what you have to described, these birds aren’t really a safety issue.
By the sounds of your description (needing a cherry picker, rotten/destroyed woodwork, points of access needed) this is not an easy or straight-forward excercise; presumably there are also issues such as waterproofing, quotes, engaging builders and tradespeople to be considered – bear in mind that the builder who does the eaves and woodwork may not do the guttering, so the EC or SM will need to co-ordinate to existing schedules, then there’s someone to be onsite a pest controller (etc)
One month doesn’t sound unreasonable at this moment: perhaps a quick chat with the EC to find out what dates they are looking at getting the work done will shed some light on the subject. If they don’t have any dates in mind, or want to go to another EGM, at that point it will be time for you to up the ante.
@Juan Durection said:
“In our block it’s like a Catch 22 ……why be on the committee?”Hi Juan – that last point seems most pertinent: to my way of thinking, that is when you would nominate yourself to be on the EC at the next AGM to effect the changes from within.