Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Michael – I agree that the argument will not pass the pub test – but unfortunately the alternative is the legal route and having just come out the other side of a six year battle with developer/builder I can say that is not a pleasant exercise.
In our case, where millions of dollars were involved the cost, time, stress etc was worth it.
Is it possible for you to estimate potential costings of taking the legal route to help you decide what choice you really have?
JT is correct – pebbles are usually there to act as heat barriers, but can also be there to protect waterproofing materials.
We have a couple of similar areas in our 4 building scheme and yearly ‘maintenance’ ensures area is kept clean and functional.
Our large scheme in NSW, has had several successes by requesting that complainant, committee representative and offender meet to conduct a simple noise test – that is, someone (not resident) walks around normally, moves chairs, drops keys etc. In the unit below a committee member (or other non related person), offender representative and complainant representative ‘witness’ any noise.
This can take some organising, and patience, but whether it is successful or not, the complainant has ‘evidence’ to take to tribunal/mediation.
In two of our own cases, the ‘offenders’ were so shocked by the noise created they voluntarily replaced/upgraded their flooring.
Two agreed to remove/upgrade their flooring at mediation, and we have had two wins at NCAT.
Our committee is now very comfortable with taking action (issuing Notice to Comply), where once it dallied and danced around.
Yes, OC/SC meetings are private, but can be recorded to assist with minute taking.
I think what is illegal is recording in ‘secret’ or against the wishes of an individual.
My understanding is that you can record, but it is what you do with the recording that is governed by legislation.
Our committee has set up a dedicated forum – software is free, secure and does not require ‘high-tech’ IT skills to administer.
All business papers, discussions and reasonings are kept for future reference and for access by owners if needs be.
Clockwise – my own experience is similar to yours and I believe the practice you describe is common practice – unfortunately.
A good reason not buy an apartment in a scheme governed by BMC.
I will resist the temptation to get on my soapbox about BMC, but please take JT advice and spend the time (money?) to review existing services and get yourself prepared to challenge the next appointment for BMC manager, SM etc.
A starting point would be to get very acquainted with your SMS (ask SM for a copy) and the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015 – https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/~/view/act/2015/51/full
I was once told by an eminent strata lawyer that BMC are a developer favourite because they control the ‘stupid and ignorant’ residential owners.
We, a large scheme in NSW, have used electronic pre-meeting voting for a couple of years (4 meetings) and it certainly stops the proxy issue.
Our electronic agenda allows for nominations, number on committee and a ranking score – where a poll/ballot is required.
Just so you know, at a recent NCAT hearing, the member determined that ‘excluding’ voting options from (say) non-residents, would not stand up to a challenge.
A video of the car being towed to an appropriate alternate spot would be proof that all care was taken and no damage done?
Lady Penelope – good questions. The two lots that decided not to go ahead with installing timber flooring did so mainly because they were concerned about future noise complaints and the fuss and bother that causes. Their applications were not rejected outright, rather the acoustic products ‘not recommended’.
One lot owner did not test a range of more expensive products and were reluctant to pay for a second acoustic test.
One apartment did not have a ‘suspended’ ceiling below, the other did – that affects acoustic quality as well.
Neither lot owner has indicated they wish to take their particular issues any further at this stage. However, I expect they may explore other products as time goes on and new products come to market.
I can say, that to date, OC has not been asked to do anything about the slabs – although one owner did ask another to ‘beef’ up her ceiling – which was declined.
I doubt it is the responsibility of OC to ensure ‘equality’ of the slabs but if it was that would make for interesting debate. As far as I understand, our scheme was built with the intention of carpet only.
A split has formed in our SC lately, which has brought me back to this topic…
In our case, the split was caused when new members of the committee decided to adopt a view expressed by the loudest and most ignorant member of the group – the newer members not willing to ‘educate’ themselves by reading legislation or by-laws.
I understand, one cannot force a committee member to sign an agreement to ‘educate’ themselves, but are there other ideas out there that I could perhaps add to this code of conduct with a view to having it adopted as a by-law?
We are a large scheme in NSW.
I agree with Happy Strata.
Our scheme requires a pre-installation test to guide choice in the type of materials suitable to reach LnTw set in by-law (40 in our case) and then a post-installation test to confirm correct installation.
After 12 months of following this criteria we now have data from about 15 units – each with varying base (concrete slab) readings. Two units had base readings were so high (70+) that the engineers advised no hope of achieving a satisfactory outcome no matter the materials used.
Those that had more moderate readings (<70) have had fabulous outcomes.
Our by-law includes the following condition prior to approval:
an acoustic testing report, conducted by a member of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants (AAAC), on-site, according to the requirements of ISO 140-7:2006 and 717-2:2004, confirming that the acoustic performance of the new floor covering has an LnTw value of 40 or less (6 Star rating) equating to that of medium pile carpet with underlay.
Personally, I don’t think SCA recommendations would assist or make an impression on me at all.
From my experience several SCA award winners would not get a look in at any scheme I had a say in – having been bitten more than once.
I would rather listen to a completely independent body whose members have had first hand experience as a client of a particular strata managing agent.
If Stratabox was to be of use, to me, it would need to have a complete list of Strata Managing agents – without favour.
Whilst our scheme has no personal issue with our strata manager, we do have an issue with the big machine in the background that appears to treat us like a ‘cash cow’.
Just like the financial planners of old, strata managers are paid bonuses for extra non-routine services. Invoicing for such services are often via a back-door obscure process. A practice that could be described as deliberately deceitful and unethical.
Whilst our scheme is usually quick to pick up these ‘services’, and we always get our money refunded, it is tiresome to be on the alert all the time and occasionally does lead to dispute.
Our financial year commenced 1st October 2017, and to date we have identified $3,000 charged erroneously.
It is time the large strata management agencies stopped the practice and put in place a transparent system – such as sending invoices to a Treasurer for approval, just like any other contractor.