Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Thanks everyone for your comments re skylights etc. Confirmed my opinion.
Following on from this question, and I understand the issues, what is the position that after an owner departs it is discovered that they have carried out an illegal renovation. For example top floor apartment and skylight installed. The Owners’ Corporation were unaware of the work and the new owner simply accepts it as it is. If there was a later issue, eg water leaks through the roof resulting from the renovation, I would think that the OC would have to accept responsibilty for any repair. After all the new owner did not do it and was unaware that it was illegal. The former owner has gone and it would be difficult to sue them.
Any thoughts?
The difference between strata and company title of course is that under company title the company, eg XYZ Pty Ltd, owns the building and you then hold shares in the company and that gives you a right of occupancy to a particular area (flat No 2 for example). There is no concept of ”common property” under corporations law as far as I am aware. I certainly wouldn’t be engaging architects, engineers and lawyers unless I had everyone well and truly onside first.
Hi Sea Bee, you may have resolved this issue as I note that it has been some time since you posted and no one has replied.
Briefly…
These people are acting like cowboys. I cannot see that this somewhat strange procedure in any way complies with the SSMA. Under Section 110 an ordinary resolution is required for Minor Renovations. Any work that involves the common property requires a Special Resolution or a special by-law. This must be done prior to the work commencing. You can always apply to NCAT for a stop work order. If the issues are serious and may compromise the common property you might want to talk to a Strata Lawyer.
What scotlandx says is correct.
Strata Schemes do not have to ”register with ASIC” – not sure what as?
The suggestion by VicRes that all the Strata monies be paid into his personal bank account would amount to a perception of fraud.
Open one bank account in the name of the Owners Corporation. 2 signatories on all cheques. Arrange for all owners to pay levies direct to the account. 2 persons to be given electronic access to the account for paying all expenses electronically.
This seems to be a case where some professional advice should be obtained.
Has anybody carried out any research at this point as to a suitable By-law that would empower the OC to prohibit short term letting in the absence of the owner?
It will no doubt depend on the actual changes to the legislation which will permit OC’s to do this.
An interesting article by Tourism Accommodation Australia here which makes a number of very valid points.
The plethora of short term rentals would obviously put upward pressure on rents for genuine long term renters and of course who wants their apartment block turned into a hotel.
Maybe the home owners who think they might embrace the Airbnb model might want to consider the taxation consequences of so doing. Firstly any income earned is clearly assessable. If you find your neighbour doing this a call to the ATO tax evasion hotline might be a starting point. It can be done anonymously.
Secondly if you rent out part of your home you may jeopardise the capital gains tax exemption of the family home. Something else to think about when looking to make a few easy bucks.
A small glimmer of hope at the end of the terrifying Airbnb tunnel?
The recent comment by Airbnb’s Brent Thomas is gob-smacking in its misrepresentation and hypocricy.
Airbnb’s head of public policy for Australia and New Zealand, Brent Thomas, said Mr Sidoti’s comments were “completely out-of-step with what most of the NSW community wants”. Give us a break! Not the community I live in.
It seems to me that the purpose of ”security” cameras is just that – to provide security. Not to catch people in some very minor breach of a by-law. Maybe the ”culprit” had a bad back & couldn’t break up the box. Maybe it wasn’t their box. Maybe they were just leaving the box there until later etc..as Jimmy said you might end up on the wrong side of a defamation suit if there is some inference that the subject of the photo is being ridiculed and being unjustly accused.
The video Nazi in your block should get a life and maybe take up croquet.
Jimmy – the referall is made to the Local Court, not the District Court. Different jurisdictions.
Yes Errol. Local Courts now have this jurisdiction following the 2013 amendment I mentioned. What is the issue you are concerned with?
The bill you refer to is the Local Court Amendment (Company Title Home Unit Disputes) Bill 2013.
This bill gave the right to hear these matters in the local court whereas previously the only forum to resolve a Company Title dispute was the Equity Division in the Supreme Court. This is because the law covering company title is Federal Legislation. This was one of the driving forces which gave rise to the Strata Titles legislation in 1961. Under Strata law disputes concerning common property etc. can be resolved (if you are lucky) in the CTTT [now NCAT]. So even very trivial matters in a Company Title property would need to go to the Supreme Court of NSW, which is as expensive as it sounds.
The 2013 bill expands the jurisdiction of the Local Court to deal with a range of disputes similar to those which NCAT can hear in relation to Strata units. One major challenge for company title unit holders was that the only forum to resolve a dispute was the Supreme Court of NSW, whereas in the case of a Strata scheme a dispute involving owners who are using common property or simple disagreements over pets, finishes or awnings can be resolved in the NSW Civil Administration Tribunal (NCAT).
This problem has existed for over a century and it was in part to address this difficulty that the State enacted Strata titles legislation in 1961 to allow for a cheap, quick and simple forum for dispute resolution.
The amendment bill expands the jurisdiction of the Local Court to deal with a range of disputes similar to those which NCAT can hear in relation to strata units.
In the case of a lease this will still be covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. Disputes between a company unit holder and the tenant are still covered by that Act and will still be heard by the NCAT.
Disputes over the sale of company shares including the mortgages of those shares, transfers, forfeiture of shares or the winding up of the corporation are still matters for the Equity Division of the Supreme Court. It should be noted that the Local Court’s powers in relation to orders for payment of money are limited to the Court’s jurisdictional limit, currently $100,000, so if a dispute involves an amount in excess of this figure it will still require the Plaintiff to approach the Supreme Court.
The Local Court will also have wide powers to require a person to do, or refrain from doing any act in relation to the unit; to declare the rights and obligations of any party arising under the constitution of the corporation or under a contract; declaring the meaning of any term in the constitution or an agreement; and declaring whether any such term is void, invalid or otherwise unenforceable.
Some excerpts from the Bill.
Section 34A Insert after section 34: 34A Jurisdiction in company title home unit disputes
(1) The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings involving company title home unit disputes.
(2) A company title home unit dispute is a dispute between interested parties about any of the following matters:
(a) the health, safety and security of persons occupying or visiting the land owned by a company title corporation or residential premises located on that land (including, for example, safety of children on the premises and waste disposal),
(b) the common property on the land owned by a company title corporation (including, for example, parking and vehicle access, repair and maintenance, design and appearance),
(c) the use of residential premises located on the land owned by a company title corporation occupied by a shareholder of the corporation (including, for example, external appearance of premises or the keeping of pets),
(d) the behaviour of persons occupying or visiting the land owned by a company title corporation or residential premises located on the land (including, for example, noise), Local Court Amendment (Company Title Home Unit Disputes) Act 2013 No 6 Schedule 1 Amendment of Local Court Act 2007 No 93 Page 4
(e) the refusal by a company title corporation to allow a shareholder of the corporation to grant a lease or licence to use or occupy premises located on the land owned by the corporation, (f) administrative matters relating to the running of a company title corporation (including, for example, levies).
(3) However, a company title home unit dispute does not include the following:
(a) a dispute arising under a residential tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 applies,
(b) a dispute arising under a lease to which the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948 applies,
(c) a dispute about the sale, transfer or other disposition of shares in a company title corporation or the forfeiture of such shares,
(d) a dispute about any matter that is a superior court matter within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth.
Thanks Lady P.
To clarify. Small block, two people share the garage the aforementioned tenants and me. 2 car spaces none used that week as owners away. Only 4 apartments. No elevators. Everyone was given 2 weeks notice when commencing date advised. No problem with anyone except the lawyers who on the day the work commenced decided to have a complain even though they could park in the street 20 metres away and I had obtained special council temporary parking stickers for them at my cost.
Fortunately these horrible creatures have departed. Lesson here though, if future tenants have any problems I will apologise in the nicest way and advise them that all matters must go through their agent. If it’s an emergency of course I’ll deal with it.
On Managing Agents…………there is a company title block of which I am Secretary. As Company Title the owners can decide the suitability of proposed tenants. 6 apartments, a couple of retirees and professional couples. Very quiet block. Usually no problem but this time new owners move overseas and agent is told of general requirements to suit the building – a big advantage of company title. Who does the agent recommend? Two 20 year old males with no rental history, one not working. Property manager then sends an insulting email to the directors, not appreciated at all. I advised the licensee of the agency and the owner was most apologetic and hauled the employee over the coals. Where do they get these people?? I am increasingly finding that so called ”Property Managers” are bloody useless and full of themselves.
In our small self managed block we have recently seen both sides. The newest absentee landlord is not really bad, just can’t be bothered and leaves everything up to her managing agent. Rarely bothers to reply to me as Secretary. Tenants, two lawyers, have a problem and agent ignores them. Tells them the particular matter has been referred to ”The Strata” – whoever that is. I hear nothing from them – agent has lied. Tenants then start sending me test messages re a couple of problems to which I respond in order to attempt to be helpful. Contact owner who gets annoyed ”that is a matter for the agent”. More text messages arrive from tenants. I contact Managing Agent who opines ”but you are not a proper Strata are you”. ….”What do you mean?”, I ask.
”Well” says lady agent who has some lengthy grandiose title, maybe Senior Property Manager for the Universe, ”you’re not managed by Jamesons or anyone are you”………Oh dear!!!
Next issue, 6 months previously a decision was made to repair the garage driveway. Contractor gives 2 weeks notice, work will take 4 days and no access available to garage, including mine. Advice is immediately passed onto all residents. No comment from anyone. 2 days before work commences everyone is advised of actual start date and lawyer tenants go feral. I receive 4 text messages one day, Agent rings up on behalf of tenant, ”reminding me” of difficulty tenants now have!! Tenants are very angry. Agent phones every day. Tenants really angry! Tenants want compensation from owner as too difficult to park in street for 4 days as she has to take kids to school and go to gym. Tenants who were cool to everyone previously are now positively hostile and are threatening to sue owner for compensation for lack of access to garage for 4 days. ”Our lease provided access to garage and now we are denied that right”
Wealthy lawyer tenants have now fortunately moved out and as a parting gesture filled the recycling bin up with used nappies and kitchen waste.