Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
While I can sympathise with the frustration that the Strata Manager may have been experiencing, at the end of the day this is not their property or affecting their hip pocket particularly. It will possibly create some additional work for the SM and maybe even the SC to carefully manage the available funds. Though this reaction suggests that the SM may not be the best suited for the strata scheme.
Jimmy,
some of us that think pragmatically about these matters would suggest that there is a real simple answer to this…. a By-law gets passed and registered for the first renovation of this nature, and is simply amended to add the next lot number as and when they wish to renovate in this manner. This is ok as long as the works are the same, no alterations of plans etc
The question is then one of who pays what costs for the drafting and registration of the By-law.
Some would argue those benefiting should pay all costs, while others may consider that the By-law is equally for the protection of the OC, but best for the parties involved to come to some form of agreement on this.
This all comes back to Part 6 of the Act and particularly Sections 106-111.
When the act was being changed, these new parts were added to simplify the requirements, but I would say it has created more confusion for many.
Further, it has been made apparent by many of the leading strata lawyers that a generic by-law is not suitable for this type of renovation and there should be specific by-laws for each lot, noting that you can not approve the renovation without a Special Resolution anyway.
The intent of this Section of the act is to address who has the ongoing responsibility for repair and maintenance of what would otherwise be considered to be common property. Take for example the situation of the typical property flippers, who come in, renovate and sell, why should the OC and other owners in the building carry the cost of fixing the renovation shortcuts when the waterproofing fails, or the tiles over tiles starts to become an issue, even in some cases I have seen, creating concrete cancer in the bathroom flooring.
I can understand why your neighbour may have made application for mediation regarding the flooring. They may not want to have to deal with the purchaser who comes in and says “not my problem, I bought it like that so it must be ok”
It is possible that this matter could upset the sale of your property.
What you may want to do is to look at more permanent solutions for treating your floor to prevent noise affecting your neighbour.
It does sound like it is time to change strata manager.
Just because you have a strata manager doesn’t stop your strata committee getting these matters sorted out. They (the SC) can engage contractors and have the bills sent to the strata manager with an approval from the committee to pay the bill.
@Nettie said:
1. The product is attached by screws to the inside of the ledge ( not the floor) and columns of the balcony. These screws are no bigger than those used to hold a pot plant.
2. It has been specifically designed to cause no permanent damage.
The screws that have been used to attach to the inside ledge, what are these made of? Are the drilled into the structure? Will these remain when you move out? By referring to the inside ledge, do you mean the balcony hob? Who will have to fix them when they go rusty and damage the concrete or render? When I checked my balcony the waterproofing turns up this lip… is this the same on your balcony?
Lady Penelope it still seems to me that Nettie has affixed the screws into common property and the netting has an appearance different to the rest of the building. Last time I checked standard By-laws and the Act, there are particular approvals needed for this.
I agree mediation is a great mechanism for resolving strata disputes, though both parties need to be open and willing to find a solution.
It would appear to me that Nettie has not had a willingness to consider the rest of the other owners of the building and may benefit from first meeting with them. If the matter is to go further, these types of matters then impact on fellow owners and not help promote the community mindedness that is an important part of being a good strata citizen.
What does either party have to loose from meeting, reviewing the installation and trying to discuss mutually acceptable solutions.
At the end of the day for the strata manager, they have no interest in making any problems for their clients
Hi Guys, shouldn’t we stay focused on the questions at hand as to objections as to the contents of the minutes and the autocratic nature of how the commitee is functioning.
A simple letter to the Secretary and Strata Manager would normally assist with this as it is then on the record of the Owners Corporation.
However if you object to a decision that the committee has made, you need 1/3rd of owners to object to the decision or 1/4 of UEs to call a general meeting
Was this contract entered into via a General Meeting Resolution?
Are the OC’s accounts audited?
Wouldn’t it be better to meet with the Chairperson and Strata Manager. You would normally find that these parties are quite neutral and wanting to help all parties resolve the issue before engaging lawyers and the matter becoming a bigger issue than it needs to be.
If I understand Nettie’s posts, you are suggesting the netting is a temporary installation, but just from basic physics, how could it be in order to prevent the load of an average 25kg child falling? How has it been attached to the building structure?
When and if you move, will you be taking the net and what will be done to restore the original building?
What impact might this have on the building warranty?
If the net is not noticeable, why did Council raise their concern?
I assure you Jimmy, that the Committee has been far from vexatious and that there have been numerous efforts made to seek for Nettie to be a little more holistic thinking in relation to the Total Building.
The apartment is in a BMC and there is a Building Management Statement that governs the building.
It is interesting that Nettie does not recognise that the fixings penetrate the balcony waterproofing on a brand new building.
There have been lengthy efforts made to communicate with Nettie on this matter to seek an appropriate resolution only met with a one sided non acceptance of normal considerations.
The balcony is already partly enclosed with louvers and the netting is very visible to the naked eye from the street (hence Council making a complaint as to its installation).
There is a reason we have a BCA in Australian and minimum standards for new Buildings.
It is a shame when individuals choose not to head professional advice
Hi All,
if your strata manager is not providing you with copies of correspondence, and something has been sent to all other owners, you are entitled to invoke your rights under the act to inspect the books and records of the owners corporation (section 108 of the act)
mr s
You may wish to seek some particular legal advice on this, but, the act does not prevent the OC to resolve to transfer funds from one fund to the other, and having consideration of current fund balances and the forecast expenses for both funds, not to strike a special levy to reimburse the fund.
the above suggested, I would actually recommend that you transfer the funds by the mechanics of adjusting the apportionment of admin versus sinking fund levies, ie, reduce the sinking fund levies and increase the admin fund levies by what ever proportion you wish to transfer.
it sounds like your strata manager has taken a very by the book approach on this situation, in that they are following the act specifically by the book… However, I bet that they haven’t actually followed the act so precisely, in that they have probably expensed repairs and maintenance from the Admin fund rather than the Sinking fund, being the likely cause of the deficit, (see section 65 of the Strata Schemes Management Act). In the first instance it may not hurt to review past periods expenses to ensure that they have been paid from the correct fund.
Not sure on the layout of you building .. But it may be possible to put a ‘dampner’ on the neighbours fun and games….. Seems from reports from one OC, a garden hose seems to have been an effective resource in this regard.
Jaynebrown,
you may not be aware, but the strata managing agent earns nothing zero zilch out of any swipe card purchases. These funds go into the Owners Corporation’s accounts, not the strata manager.
what I can suggest is just checking the by-laws of the owners corporation, particularly in relation to whether the OC has a by-law registered that allows the OC to collect a bond or charge a fee for the purchase of swipe cards, as apposed to simply charging owners/residents for the cost to purchase a swipe card, including the cost of the card, programming, de-programming etc.
it is normally very easy to establish the total actual cost for swipe cards….
mr s
Thanks Jimmy, yes that is understood. I know from experience that Masked2014 doesn’t have a strong position.
take for example a fine dining restaurant in town that had taken over the ground floor common property bathrooms and a lobby. The previous owners had obtained consent of the OC to lodge a DA, but not permission to alter common property or stay in occupation on common property.
There were changes to ownership to several lots, and as a result, the OC decided to look into the matter, and took action through Fair Trading. The OC were successful in getting an order that the current owner had to get a by-law, lease or licence for their alterations, should they want to keep them and had to maintain them in good order. The sticking point was the lobby area, and it was agreed that they would vacate the lobby and as the OC had known about the alterations for so long, the OC were to fund the reinstatement of the lobby, but if the OC hadn’t known of the alterations, the lot owner was about to foot the bill.
I have also recognised that Masked2014 has contacted the builder that did the works, as he should of. This to me sounds like a contractor doing shoddy workmanship that should be fixed by that contractor or action taken through Fair Trading to ensure they don’t keep up with the same shoddy practices.
From the OC’s perspective, they could fix the common property, reinstating it to its original condition prior to the down lights, ie, removing the down lights and reinstate the original light within the apartment like other owners have. The issue for Masked2014, is that they (the previous owner) has not obtained the correct approvals for these works, and in doing so, have intruded into common property. There is plenty of legal precedent that will assist the OC’s case against the current owner, that they have not got consent to keep the works on common property.
I am suggesting, rather than having that battle, why don’t the OC and Owner work together to take action against the shoddy builder who should be the one paying all costs to fix defective building works. 2 years non structural and 6 years structural warranty requirements under the home building act. The contractor should have been licensed etc, and dependent on the contract and cost of works should be providing warranties.
Just some food for thought…. It’s easier for all to work together to resolve their common issue, use the energy to get it solved rather than fight against the other owners and strata manager, put the shoe on the other foot, how would you feel as an owner, paying to fix someone else’s shoddy renovations, that benefit no one, but just that apartment…
mr s