Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Thank you Millie. For the patience to provide an in-depth explanation.
My committee struggles to get its head around it all, but we soldier on hoping that common sense will eventually prevail.
We are muscling up for a fight (defence (?) against a change of current zoning) if needs be, so forums like this are enormously helpful.
Millie said – There is one case in NSW where the Council failed to act and after years of “sever” impact, the neighbours took the matter to the Land and Environment Court. Click here. This case law makes for excellent reading.
That case was won by the complainant against STR – so doesn’t that support the argument that Council DAs could be upheld?
Our 245 lot scheme in NSW, has the following DA condition (2006) –
“Residential (for the purpose of this consent) means the use of apartments for residential purposes, including leasing under the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, and does not allow for the use of apartments for short-term stay, tourism or serviced apartments”
Our bylaws and insurance state our scheme must abide by all Council and other regulatory requirements.
To date, we have closed down three STR in our scheme by quoting the above. Whether our action against STR will stand up in a tribunal/court is yet to be tested.
You could be opening a can of worms – unless you do some more homework.
SM is correct – there are a number of inspections/reports that can be done.
Be aware that litigant compliant reports are quite specific and are usually preceded by several inspections/reports from experts.
In our building we consulted with fire, building, mechanical ventilation, quantity surveyors and hydraulic experts. I have lost count of the number of opinions sought and the time taken – but it was years.
General defect inspections for a 200 lot scheme will cost about $50,000 – $100,000 depending on the detail of the inspection. If you are unlucky (defects exist) then that cost may be just the beginning.
In my humble opinion a defect inspection is a good thing to do but no guarantee of finding all defects – in our case a failed roof membrane was missed on the 1st two inspections because that was not being inspected (buried beneath tons of pebbles).
Your SM should be able to provide at least 3 different quotes detailing the specific inspections.
To add to my earlier post – as it is interesting that our experience seems to differ considerably to the experience of others on this forum – in that we were not invited to attend NCAT only to make a submission.
Our last dealing with NCAT was in December 2014 and was in relation to the installation of timber flooring. We applied for non approved timber flooring to be removed and the order was granted.
Jimmy, I can’t agree with you more. The Grenfell Tower tragedy (or is it a criminal act?) should be a warning to all high-rise residents here in Australia. The love-in between government, developers, councils and self-certifiers must cease.
Whilst the 2% bond may appear to be something of a solution for defects, it does not allow for the possibility of shoddy materials, such as cladding, or shoddy patch repairs to defects identified within the initial 2 year period or the problem of experts (builders, developers, self-certifiers, fire engineers) not agreeing that a defect exists (as happened with our fire dampers).
Or guess what……….. by the time everyone does agree a defect exists (4 years in our case) the builder and developer go bust! No prizes for who has to find that $1million.
And don’t get me started on roof membranes that fail after 4 years leaving a trail of destruction down 8 floors. Only to be advised by developer that the problem was related to a lack of maintenance. Beside the absurdity of that comment, who would really be removing tons of pebbles to do regular inspections. That is another $2million!
I understand that major structural defects are not restricted to a 2 year window, but then I have also been advised that fire dampers and roof membranes are not structural. So the proposed 2% bond would not have helped us at all and certainly would not identify shoddy cladding.
I must also make the point that our builder/developer were fabulous in the first two years. Only now do we realise how much we were had!
A starting solution could be independent certifiers, insurance for buildings over 3 storeys, and a proper schedule of all mechanical, electrical, fire and hydraulic assets (including serial numbers and warranties) accompanied by a realistic maintenance and capital works schedule.
It is very scary to think that residents may not know they are living with shoddy fire protection until it is too late.
What would happen if you did not agree to mediation or attending NCAT?
On three separate occasion we (committee) have refused to participate in what we considered frivolous/vexatious complaints but we did provide detailed, polite and respectful explanations to those bodies. Result was our favour.
Guess it may depend on the specific type of complaint..?
Proposed Standing Orders for Strata Committees
This is great. Thanks for starting the discussion.
My suggestions –
1. the term ‘proxy’ be replaced by ‘Acting member’ to comply with legislation in NSW (?)
2. Once a vote has been taken and the meeting has moved on to the next agenda item, there is no revisiting a previous motionOn the odd occasion we have had to apply costs against a lot owner’s account after such disputes and then the debt moves through our regular ‘debt collection’ process.
You will need your strata manager to comply though.
One owner went to Fair Trading and threatened legal action against the debt, but gave up fairly quickly after a ‘see you in court’ response.
I may not be answering your question quite the way you expect – that is whether ‘ the former is a subset of the latter’.
What I can tell you though is that ‘meeting in writing’ is not new and in our scheme is used by the strata committee to have a vote on items that do not require discussion. For example, a quote that has been previously discussed. A ‘meeting in writing’ can be quicker to organise than a physical meeting as getting committee members together can be difficult.
Only agenda items can be voted on and all owners are sent an agenda, have an opportunity to submit a response to the Secretary which may or may not be considered by the committee. No different to a physical meeting in fact.
However, now that ‘other means of voting’ can be utilised (eg teleconference) it is likely that the ‘meeting in writing’ will die a slow death – in our case anyway as we now have free teleconferencing that any owner can be part of and, if permitted, can contribute to discussion.
If the cost of the work has not been already been allowed for in the existing budget, then yes another general meeting will need to be called to determine how the work is to be paid for – in which case you should submit motions for alternate fund-raising methods to be considered. For example an increase in levy over several months rather than a one-off payment? Perhaps a strata loan?
In any case, if the work is approved and the majority of owners agree on how to fund the cost – yes you will have to contribute eventually – but there are laws and process that allow anyone to negotiate terms of ‘debt’ payments.
I doubt you can be forced into financial extremis by an owners corporation undertaking non-urgent works.
If this cost was imposed in a way unrealistic to your financial situation, then you could mediate your ‘debt’ payment terms and drag time out considerably. So it is in the best interests of all owners to agree to a sensible way of raising funds else others will have to pay more in the short-term whilst you and others take time to pay off ‘debt’.
By the way, I thought that only urgent work (ie. structural or that required to meet fire regulatory compliance or similar.) can be raised by ‘special levy’ with non-urgent work being approved at AGM.
You may have a legal argument against a ‘special levy’. Others on this forum may have more information on that.
Does seem puzzling that your emails are being ignored. You don’t say whether you are part of a large or small scheme – which may make a difference if you decide to call a EGM. In NSW you need the strata committee to request a EGM (sounds unlikely from your comments) or you will need to obtain the signatures of 25% of lot owners.
If you can arrange an EGM then you can place motions on the agenda to remove the current committee, to allow electronic distribution of notices and electronic voting so that you can fully participate whilst overseas and know that the majority of owners support this view.
Any efforts to dismiss a committee however must be carefully thought through as pushback is likely and may not be pleasant. Having said that, I can assure you it can be done – having done it myself when the majority of owners of my scheme believed me when I explained that the current committee was in a stalemate (It was wonderful to have the committee sacked, then have those that were doing the right thing reinstated and others removed).
You will need to be prepared to attend the meeting in person and make the case for all the motions yourself.