Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Sian,
I suggest writing to building management, the ec and strata manager, documenting the issue and requesting that they rectify the issue.Even if there is “a lot going on down there” they need to know the answers and fix it.
Mr strata
Clive2000,
It’s not technically possible for the first AGM to be held before the strata plan was registered, as the first AGM isn’t held until the point after 1/3rd of units of entitlement has changed from the original owner. You also want to hold your AGM at a point after the annual accounts and the accounts should be no more than 2 months old.
To tidy things up you OC may want to obtain an order from the CTTT to vary the anniversary of the AGM, setting it for half way through the 2nd month after the annual accounts.
I’m sure there are some more details involved with this situation…..
Mr Strata
Clive2000 & Jimmy,
If the EC doesn’t elect office bearers, then the EC/OC won’t be able to function correctly if you wish/need to do things without the strata manager (eg, sack the strata manager). In that the secretary is the ec member that can issue the notice of meeting, the chairperson must chair the meeting, and secretary then provides the minutes. A whole meeting of an OC could be overturned by a CTTT ruling if it isn’t done correctly.
Note the functions of the office bearers set out in s22 & 23 of the act.
Mr Strata
Clive2000,
There must be a contract (agency agreement) otherwise as per the property stock and business agents act, the strata manager can not be acting for your OC.I would suggest, if possible conducting a search of the strata records contained in the office of the strata manager, or if you are on the ec, just ask the strata manager for a copy of the current agreement.
Mostly a strata manager will be happy to assist where and how they can, but typically, based on average management fees, are managing a significant number of properties with a whole bundle of issues occurring at any given point of time, so can be quite time poor. It’s a matter of making sure that the SM finds your strata scheme as important or more then the next
Hi all,
I believe that the answer is in the OH&S act/regs.
This act contains an obligation on the controller of a work place to make sure it is a safe work place. Effectively the common property of a strata scheme is deemed a work place, whether it is a residential building or commercial building.
It is the OC’s responsibility to be aware of a workplace risk and advise employees (contractors) of the risk, where it is and what to do with it.
Keep in mind that in some buildings built in the 60’s and 70’s, they have asbestos in the window putty used for keeping the glass in the windows, asbestos in the fire doors (thank you to all those owners who have installed their own peep hole).
Now it’s one thing getting the report and another to ensure that it is used… No point in just putting it in the shelf, unless there is no asbestos found.
If the agent has commissioned this without a specific delegation or resolution, than they are in a risky position
Webwrx,
This is very unusual, as most the time a Strata Manager will pass the claim straight to the Broker to seek a response from the insurer rather than being the one to say ‘this is not claimable’. It is better to have someone else to be saying ‘no’.
There should not be any further incentives or commissions other than those already disclosed within the strata managers agency agreement.
Keep in mind that if strata managers are not earning an insurance commission then this renumeration will be reflected as management fees.
In your tender process for strata management (per your other post) I would suggest asking the strata managers who are tendering to do so based on not receiving an insurance commission.
I believe that either way that you look at 1/3rd of owners being unfinancial isn’t good. Most owners want to keep their levies to a minimum and as such strata budgets are mostly very tight with not a lot of room for late payers. These late payers cause real cash flow problems, especially looking at your Admin Fund.
1/3rd of a million dollar budget is $300k, if a large portion of this is Admin fund levies then it makes things difficult to manage as contractors tend to prefer to be paid on time.
Having a hard and fast levy collection process is essential otherwise before you know it one quarter behind becomes a year behind. Even if you start the process then it will still take time for the process to take effect and get the money from owners. In the worst case scenario an OC can bankrupt a non-paying owner (this is a sad occasion, but if the owner won’t sort out their finances then the OC is left with few options).
Some OC’s have resolved to implement the 10% discount if levies are paid before the due date. To do this responsibly they must budget the amount of the discount being allowed in the year. In effect this is encouraging owners to pay their levies on time, and instantly burdening those that don’t. The only problem with this is the owners that don’t pay attention to the discount and want to argue that they paid it on the due date hence should get the discount.
Per the act, the OC can recover their legal costs for collecting the levies (if they do this correctly).
Owners should be better educated about their responsibility to pay their levies on time, and also many owners have been getting themselves in over their heads, and just can not afford the costs of owning property, many look at reducing the amount of the levies as the solution, this is only going to delay the inevitable. If your budget is stretched you are living beyond your means.
Chris,
I think the neighboring property is privately owned and does not appear to have an owners corporation established.Diana,
Possibly one method of obtaining the owners details for the neighboring property you could try a freedom of information search at Council, but you may end up pulling up short with establishing everything relating to the building is sent to the real estate agent.A complaint to Council or Sydney Water may save you some of the hassle of continuing to pursue the owners.
Good luck
Essentially the situation is defined by the boundary of the lot, which is effectively the concrete slab of the floor.
The small wall that a bath sits on (the hob wall) is considered an internal wall, so the bath waste pipe which is under the bath but above the slab is a lot owners responsibility.
Helpmeplease,
If I understand this correctly, a pool in a neighboring strata scheme that is not part of your strata scheme, but is part of the same community needs repair.
Do you know if this pool is deemed to be community property? It may be defined as such in the community management statement.
If the pool is not part of your OC’s common property, but is ‘shared’ you should not be receiving a levy directly, but the levy that you pay to your strata scheme should partially be contributing towards this.
If it is not ‘shared’ or community property,you may want to question this further.
Austman & Jimmy,
In NSW S116 of the act covers off owners requirements to a degree, as to what they need to do before altering any internal walls. This involves getting engineering advice that the walls are non structural and giving notice of proposed works 14 days prior.
Most OC’s will have introduced a works by-law that governs the process and responsibilities for renovations and there are a couple of good ones floating around.
The situation described above is pretty ordinary.
Mr Strata
Hi Jimmy,
Sorry to correct you on this, but if an OC has no by-laws registered, or no annotation on the strata plan referencing the model by-laws, then the schedule 1 by-laws contained in the act will apply. These are even more basic then the model by-laws which are in the regs.
But otherwise totally agree with this post, ‘assumption makes an ass of you and me’.
Always check the certificate of title and strata plan for the true specifics on any situation.
Mr Strata
All,
Keep in mind that in NSW, if you have an issue with your neighbour being a nuisance, you have the right to be able to take the matter to Fair Trading yourself. This is truly a good thing.
Own your problem and tackle it head on.
The issue you have is that if the ec are to enforce compliance with this by-law for one resident then they will need to take the same stance for all. How does the ec permit some to park on common property and prohibit others?? Quite simply this would be a significant issue.
If a tenant is breaching the by-laws, they are breaching their lease and could be evicted (if the owner and property manager are willing to take action).
Get in and have a go, try mediation through OFT and see what comes… What do you have to lose?
Peter,
Being a top floor unit owner and resident myself, I can completely understand why this lock may have been installed.
Interestingly the legislation in this area was changed roughly in 2005, when section 65A was brought in. This is the section that requires a special resolution at a general meeting to authorise an alteration prior to undertaking the alteration. My understanding for this change to the act was to address those OC’s that were having to pass and register an empowering by-law to be able to instal for example an intercom system, Foxtel backbone system, building a pool or other similar substantial improvement of common property. It could be argued that the fitting of this lock could have required a special resolution prior to fitting the lock, but it could also be considered that this would be making a mountain out of a molehill.
There are some areas of common property that not all residents should have access to, eg the main fuse box or the roof top itself, for obvious safety reasons.
Most roof voids are dark dusty places with wiring and plumbing, not a lot of room to move, and with the slip of a foot it would be easy to end up sitting in your neighbours lounge room, or more embarisingly, on their porcelain thrown.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why the manhole wasn’t locked from the beginning??
Some food for thought
villageidiot,
I suggest talking to one of the great strata lawyers in relation to seeking an exclusive use by-law wording to this effect, bascily covering off on the requirement for those owners to replace the window mounted ac units at the end of their life (the ac units that is) with split style ac systems.
I believe that this should be enforceable…