Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Perhaps the 3m is the distance of unit area before you get to the common property. IE if it were longer it would go onto common property? Perhaps there was some general principle agreed to at some point for consistency of architectural style? It is not very nice that no one explained the reasons if there is something like this. Our OC has an Information Booklet that explains things like this: how far the unit area generally extends, what you need to do to get approvals, what styles of fences have been approved by general meetings and so on .
livestrong said:
Hi
I am a newbie to this forum as this is the first time I have lived in a strata.
The strata scheme that I am part of, consists of three separate buildings that are under one strata scheme, and the EC are political, mean and are disliked by many…
Of course I don't know your situation but where I live I would be a part of that EC that some would describe as political, mean and disliked by many. I actually think it is a rather small but noisy minority that only talk among themselves that think that. I like to think a quiet majority think we are doing a good job. If you are new, perhaps it is worth sitting back to observe for a while. Are you sure you have not just been told the stories by a few people who are disgruntled giving the impression the EC is mean, political etc.?
Still, demanding a poll to vote in proportion to unit entitlements could be helpful. Launching straight into restructuring the entire owners corporation might be diving into the deep end!
We do much the same. Often minor things will be quickly sorted with a round of emails. Where these involve decisions or approvals we make a point of minuting them at the next meeting. Big issues will generally be dealt with by calling a meeting but some big issues also need to be quick. We make a point of copying in everyone, advising the managing agent etc. then minute at the next meeting which will usually be quite soon if there are important issues happening.
There are Australian Standards on parking spaces that are very detailed. Sadly you have to pay for these. I have a neighbour who is an architect so his office had a copy I could borrow.
I would recommend reference to the standards by the OC or EC in any decision about whether it is reasonable to enclose the space or not. The formula changes when there is a barrier such as a wall adjacent to a space that would prevent an opening door from 'borrowing' a bit of the adjacent space.
The required width also changes along the length of a space. EG. the area where the bonnet of most cars would end up can be narrower than the area where doors generally have to open. Then the minimum width changes with the aisle width: if you have a wider space between rows of parked cars you can make the spaces narrower and still have adequate room to manoeuvre.
If the spaces would still comfortably exceed the Standards it might be appropriate to approve enclosing. Otherwise, probably not.
I think the heat pump sort don't have to have the tank with the heat absorber bit. The tank could be inside and just the heat absorber put outside.
We had an issue that required some money to fix a serious safety issue. The EC (of which I was part) recognised the danger and the need to address it urgently. We decided we had no choice but to go ahead and make the necessary repairs using part of the contingency component of our sinking fund which had ample reserves. An AGM came around before work had commenced so the budget being presented included the amount that was needed. One owner had been on the EC a decade earlier when evidence of the now-dangerous damage had first become apparent. The EC at the time decided to not act due to some poor advice from the former managing agent. He advised that it was an issue between two owners but if he had consulted the unit plan he would have known this was incorrect. One of the relevant owners pointed that out at the time (in writing) but this was ignored.
Anyway, what had been a smaller problem in the 1990s had got a lot worse last year, quickly becoming dangerous, and come to the attention of an entirely new EC. The former EC member sent notes to all owners decrying the ignorance and inappropriate spending of the more recent EC. This EC asked a strata specialist lawyer to provide written answers to a series of questions on the matter. One was “What liabilities would the owners corporation have been exposed to if the EC had not acted promptly on first becoming aware of this issue?” The answer detailed the considerable penalties for ‘failure to comply with a safety duty-general’ and ‘negligent exposure to substantial risk of serious harm’, let alone what we might have be liable for if someone had actually been hurt or killed. It was very useful to be able to read out the lawyer’s answers to this and other questions at the AGM. Many people had come to the meeting unsure what to think. In the end only two people in the room did not vote approving the works and the budget.
It was ridiculous that we even had to go to legal opinions to confirm for the owners that the EC was being proper and responsible but sometimes it helps to cut through the nonsense.
If your EC is intransigent perhaps you could get a group of other owners to agree to chip in for a simple letter from a lawyer. The more work you do, the less the lawyer has to and do the cheaper it should be IE ask the right series of questions with all the necessary information provided.
TerryC said:
Hi,
I am on the EC and been approached by a tenant asking to install a trampoline on a strip of common property. I am not against the install, but am worried about (1) use of the trampoline by one tenant only (they will lock it when not using it), & (2) where does that leave the body corporate with regard to injuries or other insurance claims by users of the trampoline?
Many thanks for your thoughts
Terry
In the ACT, granting a 'special privilege' for one owner or a subset of owners to have exclusive use of an area of common property requires an unopposed resolution. I think it is a special resolution in NSW.
I think the OC would be right to be concerned about liability for something it permits on common property.
As treasurer I have been OK with not putting levies up for the last several years even though the budget has been a little higher each year. IE we have had a deliberate slight deficit budget. The result is that our Admin fund balance has reduced over a few years from being about 50% of the annual budget to being about a third of the annual budget. This was conservative since our managing agent advised that maintaining a balance of around 25% was normal and adequate. This year we will recommend a return to levies matching the anticipated expenditure. I would not ever recommend reducing levies but you might sometimes have them stay the same for a while and I don't think they have to exactly match anticipated expenditure if you have more or less than is an appropriate admin fund balance to maintain.
At your AGM you would vote to approve or amend a budget and levies. Any owner is welcome to question the numbers but as a treasurer I would much rather that someone disputing the EC's recommendation discuss it with me before the meeting.
JimmyT said:
PeterC said:
Just being pedantic, sorry. I think you will find none of the proprietors are 'disinterested', just that many are uninterested. The distinction is useful but we are losing it
Oh, Pete … next thing you'll be telling us the “begs the question” doesn't mean 'demands the inquiry'.
Well, since you mention it…
Whale said:
…I'm becoming increasingly sick and tired of disinterested Proprietors…
Just being pedantic, sorry. I think you will find none of the proprietors are
'disinterested', just that many are uninterested. The distinction is useful
but we are losing it
What gets good attendance for us at an AGM is a proposal to update
the colour scheme to whatever is currently trendy but bound to look dated
in a few years time.
Billen Ben said:
…I am glad you have a subbie of one who is responsible and dedicated enough to do some good work and that you also have an EC prepared to step in if anything funny starts going on. It sounds like your SP is in a good situation.
Don’t think we live in an ideal happy community! We don’t have this particular issue but we have plenty of others and the EC is now starting to feel quite familiar with the ACAT, ACT equivalent of your CTTT.
You and one other owner on the EC would outvote this person.
Billen Ben said:
PeterC said:
So… Did the budget approved at the last AGM include $3000 for whatever is being done to the hall? If yes, I suppose the EC can approve its being managed this way.
I think you will find the Act is very specific about who can handle money and who has management roles. The idea that sub committees (i.e. advisory groups ) can be give autonomy over OC money and management decisions is inconsistent with what the Act requires….Would you be happy to have an advisory group in your OC given OC money to manage and account for when you know it is not consistent with the requirements of the Act? I'm not.
Obviously something more going on here but as for my own comment, an example we have working just fine, and quite legal I think, is that our “grounds coordinator” (one person sub-committee) has permission from the EC to spend a certain amount from the AGM-approved gardening budget largely at her discretion on new plants or mulch or similar as required. Just which species to plant, where and when, is generally left to her judgement together with the contractor who does the actual work. Both have shown good judgement in the past and we don't need to micromanage. She has particular expertise, access to cheap commercial tube stock and will pick a good time to do planting according the season, whether it has rained, what other jobs need attention from the contractor and so on. On occasions the EC will feed through suggestions from owners: 'A particular area is looking a bit bare after some bushes died or whatever'. As treasurer, I am happy to forward an email from the grounds coordinator, with a scan of the receipt attached, to the managing agent, copied to the other EC members, to say it is OK to reimburse the grounds coordinator for plants she has purchased. The EC would of course have to step in if poor choices were being made or the budget exceeded but we have not had that problem.
If you run into problems that seem intractable, lobby to have legislation like the ACT.
https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2011-41/default.asp
Here it is possible to deal with all matters of approving easements and such to install sustainability infrastructure with a single, ordinary resolution so long as these things are covered in a sensible comprehensive plan. IE we can now get around the need to have multiple resolutions of different classes to cover each aspect.
Fiveaces said:
Hi everyone,
I'm hoping someone can clarify some points in regards to the standard by-law for the appearance of a lot. The 17(1) bylaw states “The owner or occupier of a lost must not, without the written consent of the owners corporation, maintain within the lot anything visible from outside the lot that, viewed from outside the lot, is not in keeping with the rest of the building”…There is currently a balcony below which has a permanent awning installed which is commonly pulled down and a balcony above which has some brown lattice woodwork in addition to covering their balcony with potted plants….
We're recently had verbally explained to use via the real estate that 1 Pretend St and 1A Pretend St are under two different strata plans and committees. 1 Pretend St allows the bamboo screen discussed previously with quite a few units using them, but 1A does not. These buildings are identical and since they are physically attached would there be a valid argument that having bamboo screen is in keeping with the rest of the building?… Let me know if I just need to suck it up and deal with no screening.
Without knowing the buildings, I would think that it might be reasonable to want to avoid a proliferation of diverse screens, each different from every other one. On the other hand it might be reasonable for some unit owners to want a screen. Perhaps the solution is for a general meeting to decide on a limited number of styles that can be approved as a matter of course by the EC.
Perhaps the ECs of the two buildings could decide to have a joint meeting to decide on identical motions to put to the general meetings of each building, since you share a common interest in looking like your neighbours.