[Paul2000]

Thank you Whale for your detailed reply. (Easy to get things passed as there are only four owners and the 3 resident owners, the EC, all are in total agreement.

[Paul2000]

Thanks FCF – agree with that.

[Paul2000]

Thank you Whale.

Just to clarify:

The ground floor area of the lot was increased by 40% by the renovations which extended into the courtyard of the lot. (The total building area of the lot by something less than that). This has resulted in more building to paint and gutters to replace etc. The area “intruded” into was already part of the lot (ie the courtyard). The only common property affected was to the exterior wall and wall space which varied slightly.

At the time, the OC approved the renovation and the local Council also approved it. Somewhat conveniently, the original, and still current owner, neglected to have the strata plan amended and now does not consider that the unit entitlements should be adjusted (again conveniently).

It has never been considered that the owner has had exclusive use and the room has not been used by the owner as the lot has always been rented. As stated the room basically contains roof tiles and some tiles from all units and has not even been opened for many years.

Regarding your suggestion (2), I don’t think an exclusive by-law could be granted with conditions which then gives access to the OC. This would be contradictory I feel.

I suppose because of the owners arrogance regarding the renovations and non amendment to the strata plan for 20 years and now simply saying words to the effect that ..”it’s mine and always has been and I don’t care what the strata plan says…” makes the OC just a bit reluctant to simply pass it over.

Our view (EC) is that whilst the owner is claiming part of the common property to be on his lot and disputing his own surveyors’ amended strata plan, we cannot approve the plan.

If I were in the position of the other owner I would simply say “well I recognise that this small room is actually common property and I will make an offer to the OC to purchase it”.  But then again I am unfailingly reasonable and logical.

[Paul2000]

If the smoke alarm is connected to the fire board in the building, it will be part of the common property.

 

Item 2.7(j)

See Memorandum No AG520000 attached to LPI Circular 2011/07

http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au

[Paul2000]

I note that no reply has been posted to this question asked in Feb 2012 and thought that some of the issues could be revisited and maybe if the original poster has resolved the problem he could let us know what has happened.

I don’t think that it matters whether the parties are Company Title or Strata I don’t think that any group of owners in a building can threaten legal action simply because their view has been compromised. Additionally, lopping of most trees is controlled by local councils and most have Tree Preservation orders in place which means you need permission to chop.

In my opinion lawyers are in the business of making threats to sue and then you need to engage a lawyer to reply and so it goes… you want to avoid going to court if possible and there is no guarantee of costs being awarded in your favour.

[Paul2000]

Thanks Whale – it is indeed a dividing fence.

The owner has been renting the unit out for at least 18 years and is mainly concerned with not spending any money!

I gather that we can construct whatever type of fence we like on our side of the dividing line between lots as long as the OC have no objections (which they don’t) and it is in keeping with the rest of the building (which it would be).

 

Ta again.

[Paul2000]

Thank you for your reply. It seems therefore from what you are saying that at present if say a tree fell onto the “additions” that the insurer might not cover the loss but the Owners Corporation could be liable. In turn therr then might be a right of action by the OC against the owner.  Messy messy!

[Paul2000]

@JimmyT said:
Expenses really should come with receipts and a prior agreement to pay them. An unofficial treasurer paying himself expenses can’t be done without some sort of agreement from the Owners Corp.
An owners corp can agree at an AGM to pay ex gratia payments to EC members retrospectively for work done the previous year. That’s it.
To answer your question, is it legal – the answer is probably not. You could let the new guys sort it out but this will be outside the scope of their normal duties and I wonder how much they’re going to charge.
Is $600 expenses for 13 years of voluntary work really that much? Some accountants charge $50 an hour, rather than a year.
Frankly, bearing in mind that your relationship with your one and only neighbour is in serious strife, I’d be tempted to say that you are prepared to let this go as a gesture of conciliation – it’s a small price to pay to begin repairing your relationships.

I agree with Jimmy, the correct way that this should be handled is for the EC member to keep all his receipts and advise of the amounts that he has reimbursed himself at each AGM. Any large amounts should be run past the EC and a note made. If the EC agree to pay a nominal amount each year then make sure it’s in the minutes. That way – you wont get this sort of of trivial complaint over $600.00 in 13 years !!

$50 per hour for an accountant? my mechanic charges $110.00 and most professional accountants would charge $200 per hour. Pay peanuts etc etc

[Paul2000]

Thanks Jimmy – could you kindly provide a link or reference to the cases you mentioned?

[Author]

Replies