[newlsie]

Thanks Whale,  Yes, your presumptions are correct. Those that wanted to enclose were to pay for their enclosures.  The funny thing is that the non enclosures are virtually the same price because there is more work waterproofing, tiling and installing glass baulstrades than just enclosing. The design was approved in 2010.  The general feeling is that ongoing maintenance was to be the responsibility of the OC because owners do not necessarily maintain, especially rentals. Changes in unit entitlement was not discussed.  It seems that no-one knows what they are doing. No bylaw has been stuck and the Strata Manager is not ordering the windows despite the fact that he can order most of the windows without a further section 96.  The stumbling block seems to be the top unit wanting the OC to pay for his roof and the SM is supporting him.  The EC has no idea of the rules and is supporting the SM – who else can they defer to?.  This has been a 4 year battle that we thought was resolved with the new SM but he is now silent and not responding to emails.  My unit has leaked since 2011 when the OC conducted concrete cancer work on the unit above and nothing has been done to stop the leaks.  The windows were supposed to fix this but 4 years down the track and we are still spinning our wheels.  I despair.  I feel like going to A Current Affair.  Any advice?

[newlsie]

Hi Whale,  Yes, a Special Resolution was passed in 2010.  No by law has been drawn up yet.  Does that get done before the order goes in for the windows?  One of the owners on the top floor where there is no balcony above to form a roof is baulking at the cost and the SM is suggesting that his new roof would be common property.  This doesn’t sound right to me.  What are your thoughts?

thanks   

[newlsie]

Good story but how did it end? What was the outcome over the issue with the balcony filled with dirt. Legal or not?

[newlsie]

Thank you everyone for your response.  Newlsie

[newlsie]

Thanks DaveB,

The issue is that they are saying that they will repair the damage they made to the ceilings but that they will not paint the ceilings.  This is works they performed – surely they should paint the work.  I know in most cases the owners are responsible for the painting but my ceiling was painted in 2011 and the damage was made by the OC.  What say you?

[newlsie]

Hello,  Our SM lies in the minutes as well and despite letters to the bosses they point blankly refuse to make changes, even though our meetings are recorded and the content can be verified they still will not make changes.  Not much point in having a system if there is no way of enforcing the rules.

[newlsie]

Thanks you for your comments. In answer to your questions;

* yes we are in NSW

*  The money is raised retrospectively based on the cost of running the laundries the previous 6 months

*  Yes the OC owns the equipment

* The aim is to reduce and ultimately remove the common property laundries which by the way have a fabulous view of the city and the owners who are adjacent to them would be interested in purchasing this view which is a way of raising much needed capital funds

*  The system is working fantastically well.  18 months ago we had 90% subscribers so we are achieving our goal of making owners independent of them.  Subscribers now down to 50%

*  The drainage cannot be fixed without spending enormous amounts of money and don’t forget, ultimately the majority of owners do not want them and we definitely do not want a coin operated system

*  Doing this the right way is our goal.  Our lawyer has put in place a license agreement but others have suggested we switch to a differential levy.

Thanks DaveB for your advice.  I wonder what those people in the Eastern Suburbs do with their car stacker for only 3 then.  🙂 Newlsie

[newlsie]

Thanks Whale,  In our case a special resolution was agreed at an AGM a couple of years ago to have the owners ‘subscribe’ to the common property laundries.  This was because a) the laundries are very badly designed and when they flood, which they often do the water does not go down the very tiny drain but rather out onto the landing and into the two adjacent flats.  b) they are extremely expensive to maintain.  The EC and most of the owners want to close down most of these laundries over time as owners renovate and include laundry facilities into their flat.  No one wants a coin operated system.  At the moment approximately 50% of the owners do not subscribe. The price of the subscription is calculated each 6 months and the owners who subscribe are charged accordingly.  Is this a differential levy?  thanks

[newlsie]

Thanks for your response.  Actually I am the secretary and wanted to see all the email traffic – not just my own emails which I have a copy of on my computer.  They just photocopied everything so that I could not see the emails that the SM knew I was after. 

[newlsie]

This is not specifically an answer to the above but I thought some of you out there might be interested.  I am an owner and I wanted to look at the emails of my SM as I knew there were issues.  The SM printed 4 x ring binders of emails that were all irrelevant.  I was not allowed to see the relevant emails.  Wonder who paid for all this photocopying – thousands of pages?

[newlsie]

Thank you Jimmy,  I have just this minute got off the Seek job site.  There are plenty of jobs there that pay commissions.  EG:  SM lower north shore $90k plus Schedule B’s and another SM $120k plus Sch Bs.  I was then told that they get around 30 to 40% of the Schedule B fees charged.  Isn’t that a conflict of interest

[newlsie]

Hi All,  Anyone know the answer to this question or where I can find out if this is true?  thanks

 

[newlsie]

Thanks,  But what if the owners want to do this – to be fair to each other as the ground floor flat is exactly the same size and cost as the top floor.  Can they vote to create a by law to do this?

[newlsie]

Whale,  Thank you very much for your fabulous assistance in this matter.  We had an EGM and part of the problem got solved – ie; the south facing window replacement go ahead.  And, unbelievably the naysayers voted for this – work that one out!.  We also got agreement that the east facing windows be scoped and costed.  And, because half the meeting went home early the proposal to complete the east facing units motion got up but I don’t believe that the naysayers have gone away yet.  The CTTT orders still stand.  Thank you CTTT orders – without that I don’t think we would be even remotely where we are today.  Thanks again,  Jan

[newlsie]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I will get onto it right away and you are right I am very stressed.  I am facing around $8,000 of dental fees for this as I have started to grind my teeth at night and have cracked teeth.  Thank you all for your good advice.  I will let you know how I go.  Jan

[Author]

Replies