Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Another rules angle might be to use the default rules on noise and nuisance. After all, the problem with the dog is not that it is an animal but that it is a source of noise. The executive committee (EC) might send a rule infringement notice if requested. They are more likely to agree to do so and later you might have more success at the Tribunal if you have kept a noise diary and have your noise complaint corroborated by other neighbours. You could alert the EC to s.107 of the Act: “If the unit owner does not occupy the unit, the owner is liable separately and together with an occupier of the unit for any breach of the rules of the owners corporation by the occupier, unless the owner proves that the owner took reasonable precautions and exercised appropriate care to prevent the breach.” so I suggest that a rule infringement notice should go to both tenant and owner with the bit above quoted by way of explanation, particularly to the owner, who might be more inclined to take action if they realise they could be held liable.
Since there are only 4 units, why not leave the question of whether the gate is common property unresolved and just agree to replace them? In ACT, where I am, an OC can resolve to maintain certain categories of lot property. So, assuming a similar provisions where you are, the OC could resolve to replace the gates. If the gates are common property, then that is proper. If the gates are not common property, then the resolution to replace them could make it proper to replace them anyway.
The four owners end up paying for the gates regardless, whether they do it via the OC accounts or privately. Another way to handle it would be to have no resolution at all but just have the four parties privately agree to pay a quarter each to the gate installer.
Re seconding. I accept that may not be needed in most places. Where I live, our first general meeting resolved that the conduct of all of the OC’s meetings shall be in accordance with one of the standard texts on meeting procedure, which included the business of seconding.
Hardly relevant if it is legal because it will be ignored. How can a resolution of the committee prevent anyone from corresponding with anybody they care to?
Does the by-law require an annual payment like rent or just covering the owners corporation’s costs? We have some areas of common property given to certain owners’ exclusive use and the conditions include that they must pay the owners corporation’s maintenance costs associated with those areas. If no maintenance has been needed or done, there is nothing to pay.
Depending on what your by-law says, a vote might not be strictly necessary from a black letter law perspective but it might be necessary politically. If the by-law requires a payment but has been ignored for many years, you might need the situation to be clearly explained to owners and have resuming payments endorsed by a strong majority. Then you would be on a firmer footing if you go ahead against the wishes of those being billed.
Tenants should have the same access to common property facilities as resident unit owners. So, if there is a key to the pool area, then the tenant should get a key. Similarly, if there are utility cupboards or store rooms that owners do not generally have access to, then the tenants similarly don’t need access to those.
I recall an amusing AGM when proxies were used in the election of committee members. A unit owner wrote instructions to their proxy on the proxy form that if either I or one other member of the committee were nominated, then his proxy should vote against us. The consequence was an election held separately for each nominee, which we usually don’t do. I was reelected as was the other person targeted. Another nominee failed to get 50%, which I was pleased about. I think this was the only time someone who wanted to be on our committee did not get on.
Forwarding your email does not seem unreasonable. The buck stops with the committee. The strata manager is the servant of the Owners Corporation which is represented by the committee. If your emailed question or comment is something the strata manager is uncertain about or it is something that the committee should be aware of or requires a decision, then it is certainly proper for the manager to refer it to the committee. As a committee member, I would want to know about all enquiries or comments that come to the managing agent except those that are routine and uncomplicated.
I am not aware of a requirement to respond (I am in the ACT so less familiar with legislation elsewhere) but it is polite and good politics to do so. As a committee member we do on occasions see frequent correspondents who perhaps need to get another hobby(horse).
My guess is that they meant to say you can park vehicles there but you can’t convert the space to something else aside from a storage space. Eg. you can’t put walls around it and rent it out as accommodation to students or make it your craft studio.
Plain english would have sounded not legal enough for the bush lawyer drafting it so the intent ended up unclear. What, for example is a “garage purpose”? Is rehearsal space for my garage band acceptable? Lots of people have a workshop with power tools in their garage. Is that a garage purpose?
The rules where I live say: “…shall not use the … carport … for any purpose other than the parking and garaging of vehicles, the storage of … personal effects, and any other purposes from time to time approved in writing by the Owners Corporation. When storing any items other than motor vehicles in the … parking areas, members must [various points on safe storage]. Storage of larger quantities of personal effects for extended periods can become an eyesore and the Owners Corporation may require the removal of items deemed excessive …”
I think that is a lot clearer while flexible. It just needs sensible application.
I don’t see why not. At worst, it might annoy a lot of people if it was comprehensively defeated the first time.
If it is some very important matter that really does need to be passed and only failed because a few people ‘got the wrong end of the stick’ while having the support of a clear majority, then it might be irresponsible not to put it again.
Based on my experience at the ACT Tribunal, I would not be surprised if the Tribunal had a preliminary conference at which it attempted to help the parties reach an agreement, which could then be given as ‘consent orders’. Otherwise, if the dissenters insisted on a hearing, I think the Tribunal might allow that but would be reluctant to overturn a decision that was validly made, was reasonable and supported by a majority.
Essentially the Tribunal would overturn a decision and substitute its own decision only if it were convinced that it was unreasonable for the resolution to have passed. On the face of it, it sounds like a well-reasoned decision was made (i.e. not unreasonable) to prioritise works, raise a special levy for the most urgent and to have a plan for funding and completion of the less urgent over several years. Even if some would have preferred a different schedule for the works, it does not sound like the resolution was ‘unreasonable’ so the Tribunal would not overturn it.
All unit owners are entitled to equitable ‘use and enjoyment’ of the common property. If some owners have been provided with the use of letterboxes on the common property but not others, this inequitable. I would argue that all owners should be provided with a letterbox to match those that have been made available for exclusive use by just some of the owners.
Our set of townhouses was built in the 1970s. Community facilities were intended but not much happened at the start. Over time, things were added. Early on a double clay tennis court then playground equipment. Later a wood BBQ (we have plenty of trees). Much more recently, the BBQ was not being used much and it had only a small picnic table adjacent. We added two much larger picnic tables, paved the surrounding area, added a picnic shelter (so you can plan an event even if the weather is looking dicey). The big hit was including a pizza oven in the picnic shelter – it cooks very quickly and is amenable to handling a larger group and diverse food preferences. People have their own BBQs since gas BBQs got relatively cheap but nobody has a pizza oven. It is easy to tell neighbours you are lighting the oven and they are welcome to join in. The pizza oven and BBQ and picnic shelter are next to our larger playground so kids can be supervised while adults have somewhere to sit and chat. Kids have something to do while dinner is being prepared etc.
Most recently we converted one of the two tennis courts into a community garden with raised beds. One neighbour commented that he had met more of his neighbours since having a plot in the garden than in decades previously.
While Australia is leading the world in discouraging the uptake of EVs, I can also see why the Zoe might not have appealed. By all accounts they are very nice cars and they are one of the most popular in Europe. The fatal mistake for selling these in Australia was leaving out the option to do fast DC charging, which every other modern electric car has.
A Zoe would be great as a second car or if you plan to never leave town and can charge at home. However, if you think you might sometimes do a highway trip, then every other EV on the market was a better choice on this one feature alone.
…But a few years ago after a string of really hot week days we hit 400A/phase. … so there is no real way to say “we’re close to the limit, don’t charge your car”. If they were restricted to charging overnight (10pm – 6am) that would probably help since most poeople would be in bed and the sun has gone down, reducing the heat load…
I don’t know how many units you have but if your historic peak load was 400A/phase from a 600A/phase supply, then you could supply 200A/phase to vehicle charging. Three phases x 200A would allow 10A single phase charging for 60 vehicles. If you have less than 60 units, you could safely let each unit have an ordinary 10A power point and they could all be charging in the worst possible circumstances and you would still be OK.
As it happens there are systems to deal with exactly your example, even if you have more units. A staged adoption might include 32A single phase cabling for parking spaces but terminated in ordinary 15A power points. Until there was some particular number of vehicles, the building supply would be fine. I routinely charge at 10A and it is ample (pardon the pun). Fast charging is not needed where one routinely parks.
You plan to upgrade the system once you get to more EVs. Then the ordinary cheap power points are replaced with a set of networked 32A EVSE charging outlets. These can be controlled from a central device. That device might be set to allow a maximum supply to the complete set. If every car were plugged in and charging, each car might only be allowed 6A. As cars that did not drive very far cease charging or leave the building, the system allows the remaining cars to take 10A each. Some time later, more cars have finished charging and the few remaining are allowed 15A each without exceeding the total allow supply for charging. Eventually, there are few cars remaining and all are allowed to draw 32A.
A further refinement of such systems is that the maximum supply to the set of charging outlets can be varied dynamically and automatically to reflect the difference between the maximum permitted building load and the non-charging load of the building. So, nearly all of the time, there will be lots of excess capacity that can be dedicated to charging. On the unusual occasions when the building has a high demand such as in the example, car charging can still proceed albeit more slowly and automatically shared among the vehicles requiring a change. As the evening wears on and the load from units is reduced as the evening peak passes, charging rates can ramp up and all cars will get a decent top up, even in the worst case scenarios.
These really are set and forget systems. They are described in more detail and with diagrams in the WattBlock publications I mentioned.