Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Many of the Treasurer’s functions (s.43 UTMA) can be delegated to a managing agent on a day to day basis but the Treasurer is still responsible to see that those functions are carried out properly. I don’t see how that would be possible without access to financial reports. More than a decade ago all of our EC members had access to financial records via our managing agent’s website and could create reports on demand and automatically.
A strata manager has to give EC members access to records. Doing that electronically will save them a lot of bother compared with producing paper records! I would simply let any prospective manager know that EC access to on-line financial records is an essential criterion for you when selecting a manager.
The OC I belong to has used a lawyer on a few occasions. One of their first bits of advice was to nominated a person from the committee from whom they would be authorised to receive instructions.
As the fence is on common property, the OC can decide to remove it. I would advise the OC to give the unit owner a choice between 1) having the area formally approved for their exclusive use subject to conditions about repair and maintenance of the fence and the enclosed area, or 2) the OC removing the fence so that the OC can have oversight of and access to the area that it is responsible to maintain in a safe condition.
Does the land grab disadvantage any other residents? While common property, it is property that nobody else would or could have used?
My concern would be 1) that the area is unavailable to others for their use and enjoyment and 2) that the Owners Corporation is liable for anything on the common property that it has not been maintained and should have been maintained. What if there is something dangerous that can’t be seen behind the fence? What if the fence falls over on someone?
If nobody else wants to use the area, then a solution could be to pass a bylaw (Special Privilege Rule in ACT-speak) giving exclusive use of the area to the relevant unit owner on the condition that the owner of that unit at any time must undertake any necessary repair and maintenance within the area and of the fence. That permission could be granted subject to some one-off payment or an on-going annual amount.
If something was not done properly in the past, the situation can be rectified by doing it correctly now.
As someone who has spent time on the committee where I live, there are some people we hear too much from over often petty issues but there are others who we wish would email when they have a concern. Quite often it is only in a conversation that I would find out about some issue that could have been easily fixed that the committee would have been happy to have fixed if only someone had mentioned it to us sooner or sent an email. Take the time to have conversations. Be constructive. Offer to help.
I would have done the same as you to get the work done promptly and assuming that reimbursement would be forthcoming one way or another.
It seems to me that the two owners corporations should have each claimed against their own insurance (who might be the same insurer since there are not many doing strata insurance). Those insurers could then have recouped their costs from the driver or the driver’s insurance since the driver admitted liability.
However, ultimately, it should be the driver’s insurance paying for the whole thing. So, if the neighbours are uncooperative and your OC is out of pocket, then I would be first asking the driver’s insurer to pay up and, if that doesn’t work, going to the Tribunal for an order that the driver or their insurer reimburses your OC for the full cost of the fence.
Storage in a meter room does not sound like a good idea. I was once involved with installing some large equipment in a room that housed a large distribution cabinet. The footprint of the equipment impinged by only a cm or two into the clearance that is required around such a cabinet and we had to get the equipment moved.
I am not sure what the problem is here. The AGM is coming up. A budget will be approved. Levies will be decided. I am in the ACT so some nuance of our legislation might be different. However, when the underlying balance of our Admin fund has been a bit low, we have simply decided a levy that was enough to cover the budgeted expenses plus a bit more to get the balance back to a healthy level. Conversely, when we have sometimes left levies the same as the previous year even when the budget has increased a bit because we had a more than ample end of year balance.
I have experience of installers’ advice about what is feasible and have learned to be sceptical. Their advice is frequently just what is quickest and easiest for them or even just what they usually do. Some have very little imagination for creative solutions. With a little push, it often turns out that what is wanted can be done. Have other units managed to install RCAC with the compressor in the rear of the units and not at the front? If so, it can be done. Perhaps the two units with compressors at the front were unilateral action by the two owners and not approved?
Where I am, people often want to put the compressors in a location on common property that detracts from the appearance of the site but puts the compressor out of the unit courtyards where the owner would see it and where its effect on appearance would be much lessened. The common property location would be consistent with the usual style of installation that installers are accustomed to so that is what installers recommend. As a committee, we are forever telling people to go back to the installer and tell them that they can do it differently as proven by various approved installations that are kept within the unit areas.
In my particular unit, it would not have been possible to put the compressor outside the unit area unlike most of our other units. Regardless of approvals, we had no choice but to do it within the unit area. It was also not possible to put the plumbing over the ceiling for the usual high wall units due to a second floor. Instead we have one larger compressor in our courtyard for a multi-split system that can run any combination of our multiple internal units mounted low on the walls of rooms. The plumbing for the refrigerant fluid and drain lines go under our suspended timber floor. The low wall location is better in any case since we use the system primarily for heating.
Does the neat hedge improve the value or desirability of any unit within the complex? I’d be surprised if its neatness isn’t a positive benefit to all. Just a thought. Also, are these amounts sufficient to warrant a possibly divisive matter being given life?
Despite having given an answer about how differential funding might be done, I agree that it is probably not worth the bother. Most likely, trimming the hedge is a minor cost in the overall costs of running the scheme. Most likely all benefit from the good appearance of the whole scheme both from trimming the hedge and other maintenance of the common property.
A further thought. From s.78 it is possible to depart from levies in proportion to unit entitlements and have some other mechanism so long as the method is ‘fair’ taking various things into account that are set out in that section. So, you could have a levy determination method that is: Everybody contributes in proportion to unit entitlements (as usual) except that the five east wing units only contribute the cost of hedge maintenance.
The alternative method for levy determination needs a special resolution to be adopted. It could be couched in terms of a rule and registered. So, if fewer than a quarter would be opposed, and ideally with a consensus, you could just resolve at a general meeting that it would be fair to do things that way.
There might be a creative way around this if it is that much of a concern.
S. 29 Work on behalf of particular unit owners or occupiers
An owners corporation for a units plan may, if authorised by an ordinary resolution, enter into and carry out an agreement with an owner or occupier of a unit for—
- (a) the maintenance of the unit; or
- (b) the provision of facilities or services for the unit (or its owner or occupier).
Perhaps, the OC could be authorised to contribute to the cost of maintaining the fence for the 5 responsible west wing units to the extent that it matches the expenditure on maintenance of the hedge, for which the OC is responsible.
As for the question of ‘How do other stratas make adjustments for expenses that benefit one group more than another?”, they often don’t and often it would be impossible. What if you had a common property BBQ, a tennis court and a children’s playground? Some might use none of these. Some might use one or two. Some might use all the facilities. The bottom line is that such common property features, or even just a nice looking hedge, ultimately benefit all, even if they don’t use them or even care about them because, if nothing else, their property value is enhanced.
The ACT’s Unit Titles (Management) Act used to have a section that said an Owners Corporation (OC) could exempt itself by special resolution from a maintenance obligation subject to conditions that it would not have a significant adverse effect on the appearance of the common property or safety. That seems to have disappeared but perhaps it is still there and you can find it. Now it seems that a maintenance obligation can only be transferred to individual unit owners in the context of a special privilege rule or a condition associated with a ‘minor use’ and those only pertain to common property.
As the hedge is on the boundary of the ‘nature strip’ and individual units, it is arguably a shared maintenance responsibility between the individual units and the OC.
On the other hand, perhaps the private unit areas go up to the external boundary of the OC and the hedge is inside the private unit areas and just extends to the boundary and not onto the nature strip. If so, the OC could note that the hedge is in the private unit areas and require the 5 unit owners to maintain it, including trimming to prevent it from extending out into the nature strip.
What is the status of the ‘west wing’ fence? Is that also a boundary between individual unit areas and the nature strip? If so, aren’t the hedge and the fence the same? The west wingers have a fence boundary and the east wingers have a hedge boundary. Perhaps the hedge requires regular trimming, which is a regular cost but the fence needs only irregular maintenance but might eventually need replacement. Perhaps both should be a shared individual unit owner and OC cost and things might even up eventually.
If all or nearly all are agreed, I’d suggest that an OC rule be adopted by special resolution at a general meeting and properly registered. I suggest that the rule is written symetrically in that it gives the 5 west units OC permission to erect a fence on their boundary subject to a maintenance requirement on those 5 units while the 5 east units are given permission to install a hedge on their boundary subject to a maintenance requirement on those 5 units. I would include a requirement that the fence for the 5 west units be maintained in a consistent style for all 5 west units and that the hedge for the 5 east units be maintained in a consistent style for all 5 east units. I’d include a stipulation that the OC (in effect the EC) can determine what maintenance is required for the fence and hedge and the OC bill the relevant 5 units for any costs associated with that maintenance.
A ban on common property seems to be not uncommon. There is much discussion of this topic here. A blanket prohibition on smoking anywhere on lot or common property could be construed as “harsh” or “oppressive” and invalidated on that basis ie that it is harsh that smoking is prohibited within a lot if the smoke does not escape or becomes adequately diluted and diffused.
… Do you think carpark is well ventilation to storage it?
A carpark should have adequate ventilation as they are designed to deal with vehicle exhaust fumes.