Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Hi Phil74.
SC stands for Strata committee.
My information came from discussions with 3 strata managers and a laywer when I was enquiring about compulsory strata managers.
It was made clear that the ALL functions of the owners corporation MAY (and usually are) transferred to the compulsory SM.
My recollection is that the SSMA 2015 has a reference as well – which I do not have access to at the moment.
Good luck
Although I will add, that at the time of appointment the ‘functions’ appointed to the compulsory strata manager may be limited to a degree. You should find it all in the original NCAT ruling.
My understanding is that a compulsory strata manager replaces the OC and SC – that is, takes on all functions. So yes, they can determine levies. But only for the period appointed. At the end of that period a general meeting is called and functions return to OC/SC.
Clearly there is no objection, per se, to air cons in the building – as some owners already have them.
However, it is reasonable to have a by-law that protects architectural standards. So, if, as you say, the location of your proposed condenser does not breach the architectural standard then the new by-law will not apply. And I do not think that any by-law can just ban air cons for the sake of it.
So take photos of your balcony for later proof if needed. And don’t forget, NCAT have already ruled that it is okay to have an air con installed under the condition that architectural standard applies.
I am not a lawyer, but the first problem that I see is that the agreement is over 2 years old – and there has been no complaint until now?
Perhaps there are other reasons for terminating/invalidating the current arrangement?
In our large scheme in Sydney, which has been dealing with numerous fire defects for 10 years, we have alway been advised that maps are not a requirement – just nice to have. However, clearly visible exit signs are.
In the case of emergency, no-one stops to read maps.
Depends on what you mean by ‘audit’ I think.
In my large scheme, NSW, we have monthly, six monthly and yearly ‘inspections’ – as per our AFSS requirements. Any defects found during there inspections are reported to SM/SC for attention – but most do not get attended to until the AFSS is due.
Yes – you do not have to use your lift company. In our case, we chose Telstra to install a mobile network that covers our 7 lifts and is compliant with all safety/emergency considerations.
This followed an OCN sponsor who conducted a series of site inspections and held a tender – at a cost that was very reasonable and which ultimately saved us heaps of angst and money. ($200 per month!)
Is the 21 days notice for a meeting that includes special resolutions a requirement in NSW? I have been unable to find a reference in SSMA 2015. Thanks in advance.
jd2127 – in our large scheme in NSW, there are no specific by-laws preventing a resident from ‘conducting a business’ from their lot. However, the by-laws do state that a lot can only be used for ‘residential purposes’. Therefore changing a lot from ‘residential’ to ‘business’ status would require approval from OC and probably Council.
Our scheme has a number of residents who conduct businesses such as tutoring, accounting, web-site development etc from their home – but that does not change the ‘residential’ status of the lot itself.
In addition, our scheme has by-laws that cover behaviour of residents and their guests, visitor parking, children playing on common property, noise, nuisance and hazardous activities.
So, as far as our scheme is concerned, a ‘business’ that does not have an adverse affect on other residents or common property is likely to go unchallenged and would not require OC approval.
Hope this helps.
Can you drop a note in letterboxes? And introduce yourself etc. Only 12 units so not a big job.
Surely an individual lot owner is not responsible for keeping the gutters cleared?
JohnKen – if the planter boxes are common property, as you have said, then an individual lot owner is not responsible for their maintenance – despite how the common property is accessed.
To pass responsibility of the planter boxes (common property) to a lot owner would require their consent and an exclusive use by-law – at the least.
In my view, it is not ‘reasonable’ to try to pass the cost to an individual lot owner.
In answer to your first question –
I don’t see why not. However, if the intention is to get an opposing or second ‘expert’ opinion you may be heading for trouble. Who will decide which ‘expert’ is correct?
In answer to your second question –
No.