Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Appalling – firstly that the phone service was cut off, and secondly that the SM did not investigate the reason before jumping to conclusions.
When the time is right for you to look at replacing existing copper service, you will need to do your homework thoroughly. NBN ready lift phones, are ‘new technology’ and there is currently a race on between telcos and lift consultants to get their products out there.
Our 7 lift scheme in NSW, has been quoted $9,000-$39,000 to ‘solve’ the problem.
We are likely going to go with a Telco, who will not only guarantee the stability of the mobile service (which we do not have in our part of Sydney otherwise), but will continuously monitor sim cards, modems and batteries, will be independent of lift contractor, will be 4G compliant and will not touch/add anything to lifts themselves.
I agree with Jimmy – best go after the individual lot owners.
As for a divorce – we have that at our scheme, but ‘divorce’ has a different set of problems that could fill up this forum in a heartbeat.
In our case, residents (245 lots), commercial (3 lots) are in constant battle – and there is always a stalemate as each entity has an equal vote (50-50).
Yes – the work of developers who (I believe) instil a ‘right of entitlement’ in most mixed developments.
At our strata, we highly recommend an in-situ acoustic test of a selection of products be done prior to purchase. Else there is a risk that an application starts on the wrong foot.
As for the application –
I would make a sketch of the areas being affected and detail the precise scope of work intended, including the type of flooring, underlay, installation method.
For example, in a recent application I received for consideration:
“A minimum 10mm isolation air gap will be maintained between the above floor components and the walls, at all wall/floor junctions and a minimum 5mm isolation air gap between the finished timber floor and all architraves and door jambs This gap can be treated with installation of foam backing rod, and flexible polyurethane sealant”
Hope this helps
I agree with JimmyT
But that clause in the “Who’s responsible?” document is going to keep tripping us up and, reluctantly, my view is that you have to decide whether or not it’s worth fighting.
After a number of years experience with leaking roof, OC pays for all damages, clean-ups, repairs, – no matter ‘who is responsible’.
Since we dropped using ‘who is responsible’ as our only guide and added some common sense our scheme is a much happier place. So each time it rains, 20+ apartment lot owners rest in peace.
The cost has not been a big burden on our budget and some owners take the opportunity to renovate and share costs.
If a bylaw exists, then there shouldn’t be a problem.
However is the bylaw in breach of DA? Do you have access to DA conditions to check? Your local council should be able to help.
In our large scheme in NSW, such a bylaw would be illegal.
Dingo asks
was wondering if you know where I can find a sample application letter for both major and minor renovations?If your SC/SM does not have an application form to send you (our SC has created its own), then you could cut and paste from the Act (s110) and use that as a template:
(3) “Minor renovations” include but are not limited to work for the purposes of the following:
(a) renovating a kitchen,
(b) changing recessed light fittings,
(c) installing or replacing wood or other hard floors,
(d) installing or replacing wiring or cabling or power or access points,
(e) work involving reconfiguring walls,
(f) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(4) Before obtaining the approval of the owners corporation, an owner of a lot must give written notice of proposed minor renovations to the owners corporation, including the following:
(a) details of the work, including copies of any plans,
(b) duration and times of the work,
(c) details of the persons carrying out the work, including qualifications to carry out the work,
(d) arrangements to manage any resulting rubbish or debris.
(5) An owner of a lot must ensure that:
(a) any damage caused to any part of the common property by the carrying out of minor renovations by or on behalf of the owner is repaired, and
(b) the minor renovations and any repairs are carried out in a competent and proper manner.
I agree with Lady Penelope. Not necessary.
Melanie, I can confirm what your SM has said is correct – that being ‘nbn ready’ only means that individual lots can make their own arrangements with their preferred provider to connect to NBN. Your choice.
Nothing to do with other building services such as lifts or emergency lines. However, your SC or SM will need to register all such lines with NBN as Tharra advises – to avoid issues down the track.
In the case of emergency lines, our fire monitoring company installed a dual mobile sim system which turned out much cheaper than the copper lines we had been using.
We are still working on a lift solution – but not with NBN as their current offering is too expensive.
My understanding is that an SC cannot over-ride a bylaw, rather it is obliged to uphold bylaws.
This was just the matter I took to NSW Fair Trading very recently – resulting in superquick compliance. All parties were also aware that my next step was to request a fine/dismissal of SC/SM.
Others on this forum will have the legal references.
At our scheme (NSW), partly due to a concern about the potential for short-term letting, we came to an arrangement where concerned residents could leave a key with BM/SM/Neighbour.
We have a key safe for our security guards and certain contractors and after a number of incidents we came up with a ‘safe management plan’ – something that individual residents are unlikely to duplicate.
Anyway, after several conversations with the residents, we all agreed that a key safe has a number of – in particular keeping track of the code and who had it.
And in the case of real emergency (fire or medical) – no-one waits for keys/codes in any case.
Informal meetings have there place. At our large scheme in NSW, we regularly hold such meetings but they are only a talkfest where certain issues are discussed at length (non-budgeted items, complaints between residents etc). A plan on how to deal with the issue at hand is worked out if possible.
NO formal decisions are made – but are left for formal meetings, whether that be SC or EGM. I agree with Winston that ‘decisions’ made at informal meetings are likely not appropriate especially if related to expenditure on non-budgeted items or changes to common property.
In our case, a summary of the background issue and possible solutions is tabled at the relevant meeting, sometimes with a recommendation from the committee. Then the meeting decides.
We are in the midst of a large-scale defect rectification and we get plenty of complaints about costs, but rarely do we get offers from other owners to assist the process. If we do, they often disappear when 500 page documents turn up for their reading and comments/recommendations. If they can stomach it we sometimes invite them to assist the committee.
Winston – It sounds like the SM is doing the right thing by calling EGM and Special Resolutions must be approved accordingly. Have you tried asking the committee if you can participate in their informal meetings?
Try this:
https://shop.opr.com.au/strata-resources-and-links/
Choose 10 year sinking fund forecast.
You will need to correct some formulas, but otherwise works well and is modifiable to your own needs.
Lady Penelope – I agree…… excluding those that are not tech savvy is not appropriate. We take great care to ensure those individuals receive ‘paper’ versions where possible. In our 245 lot scheme, there are only 5 ‘non tech savvy’ individuals…. so not hard to manage. The occasional phone call from committee fills in gaps if necessary.
Tharra – yes, some systems are too time consuming. We have managed to find a good balance – mainly because it is not down to one person to manage. Several people do their bit to maintain currency of information.
Austman – we have both a secure system, and an open basic website. However, all registered agents and all tenants are part of our secure system and are not excluded. Open site displays basic information only, including bylaws, and an option to contact committee, building management and or strata manager directly. However, once a resident (owner or tenant), or a nominated person on behalf of an owner – registration is automatic. Usage is optional.
Our experience has been to mix communication methods up, but it did take a year or two to get everyone registered, educated and involved.
I agree with Jimmy that a secure, password protected web-based system is the go.
We have used BuildingLink as our platform for over 5 years and it works a treat as a general communications platform as well as a building management system.
We mix up SMS blasts (emergency), emails, newsletters, formal meeting notices, rolling notices on a display screen in carpark, an internal ‘neighbourhood meeting place’, internal ‘pet park’, internal ‘marketplace’, on-line library of all strata documents (plans etc), resident surveys and paper notices.
It has taken a while (as not all owners are ‘savvy’) but committee is confident it has settled on a mix that works for everyone. No owner can complain about not knowing what is going on now, yesterday or tomorrow.
Out of 245 lots only 5 retain paper systems, with the rest using phones, tablets or PCs to make or receive communications. Whilst, many owners love our newsletters, others just want minutes and outcomes. Owners can elect to be part of the system or not – except for formal strata communications such as meeting notices.
Individual posts are viewed by building manager and/or committee before general release. In five years only 2 posts have been blocked, although a number have been controversial.