Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Is there a govt body I can complain to?
…OC fees being raised for a “sinking fund” (called a Maintenance Fund in Victoria) should be detailed in the OC’s Annual Budget…
I assume that Victoria, like other jurisdictions, requires an Owners Corporation (OC) to have a Sinking Fund Plan (SFP), usually for 10 years, that anticipates major but infrequent repair and maintenance requirements and spreads the cost evenly over the years of the plan. I suspect that the OC may have had a regime change from people concerned only with keeping levies low to people who developed a SFP with a program of works and a funding plan for that program of works. A SFP avoids hitting the owners with a huge bill all in one year by spreading costs out. It would be unfair for some owners to enjoy the use of the common property facilities and low fees for years and then sell to new owners who then have to pay for the maintenance that becomes necessary the next year.
So, I’d suggest checking whether there is a sinking fund plan that sets out anticipated levies for the fund over an extended period and the schedule of anticipated likely maintenance. It is also reasonable for a SFP to include a contingency component for items that turn out to cost more than anticipated and entirely unanticipated expenses.
If there is a plan, then the levies might be reasonable. On the other hand, if there is no plan, then I would be wanting to know how the increased levy is justified. Presumably the last AGM approved the levy, so there must have been some sort of explanation that a majority of owners accepted as reasonable.
I can think of many disadvantages of incorporating car ports into your lots and not many advantages. For a start, if the car ports become dilapidated and unsightly or dangerous, how will you compel the new owners to fix them? …
We did something like this. We made it a condition of the grant of special privilege (ACT-speak for exclusive use) that the unit owners must meet the owners corporations costs.
Our rule (aka by-law) was drafted with legal advice and includes:
“The Member shall pay to the Owners Corporation such amounts as the Owners Corporation may from time to time determine are necessary for the maintenance and repair of that part of the common property over which the Member has been granted special privileges.
“Such amounts shall be paid within fourteen (14) days of the Owners Corporation requesting any such amount in writing unless a longer payment period is specified.
“In the event that an owner fails to make payment in accordance with this clause the Owners Corporation will be entitled to recover the unpaid amount as a debt owed by the Member together with any reasonable costs incurred in recovering that amount. Costs include without limitation strata management fees and legal fees.”
There is another condition like the preceding one about the carport structure for those who have a carport rather than an open space. There are other conditions such as that rules that apply in the unit also apply in the special privilege areas, not modifying without permission, not storing hazardous stuff, OC can recover costs associated with making hazards safe, OC can still do what it likes on these bits of common property so long as it does not interfere with the use of the space for housing a vehicle, and so on.
The last mentioned term allows the OC to have a communal solar electricity system on the roof of one of our common property carports. The PV system makes no difference to the utility of the spaces below for parking.
So, when the carports need painting or the gutters cleared out, the OC can get in trades people to do the work and add the cost to the bills of the relevant units.
Another option would be to invite the unit owner to put a motion to a general meeting for approval of the camera with appropriate conditions about signage etc. If the motion passes then the unapproved installation has been remedied. If the motion fails, then the Tribunal can be assured that the owner was given an opportunity to make a case for approval and thereby remedy the breach but the democratic process said ‘no’.
Without this, the Tribunal might ask the OC to put it to a vote rather than giving orders for the removal straight away.
I think there should be a middle ground…
I think the ACT has that middle ground. A particular animal can be refused permission on reasonable grounds and reasonable conditions can be imposed. What you can’t do in the ACT is ban pets outright. It would be hard to find reasonable grounds to ban a couple of goldfish but there could be reasonable grounds to refuse such a quantity of fish that an aquarium containing many tonnes of water would be required, possibly overloading the building structure. Similarly, a cat confined to the unit area would be hard to reasonably refuse but an elephant might be.
It might assist in making the argument to point to other jurisdictions:
In the ACT, new default rules (ACT-speak for by-laws) that apply from later this year include a ‘pet-friendly’ default. Existing Owners Corporations can take up the new default or adopt their own ‘pet-friendly’ ‘alternative rule’. An alternative rule is not valid to the extent that it results in the rules prohibiting a unit owner from keeping an animal, or allowing an animal to be kept, within the unit or the common property in any circumstances.
In the absence of either the default rule or alternative ‘pet-friendly’ rule, the Act provides that permission must be obtained but must not be unreasonably withheld. Conditions may be applied.
I think the threshold test would be whether the ute is excessively noisy by some externally determined objective test. Perhaps it has a non-standard or faulty muffler and does not comply with standards required of ordinary road vehicles. Otherwise, it could be argued that starting up a road-worthy vehicle in order to leave a designated carpark is a reasonable use of the common property. If that part of the common property was always a carpark, then this was the known situation when you bought the unit.
Double-glazing your windows might help.
Eventually the problem should go away with the electrification of transport.
Perhaps you could broker an informal, temporary swap of parking spaces so that the ute parks further away and someone who usually leaves later in the morning parks nearer to you?
The fact that the owners apparently only take the cats out on a leash suggests that they are responsible pet owners. If they also collect any soiling of the common property, then that is further evidence of their responsibility.
I would give permission subject to typical conditions such as:
-that any soiling of the common property be immediately removed.
-that their animals must be under the supervision and control of a responsible person at all times when on the common property.
-that permission can be revoked if an animal is shown to cause substantial nuisance (eg. excessive barking).
Umm. Try asking your neighbours?
If it becomes clear that the restaurant’s waste area is not up to standard and could plausibly be encouraging rats on common property, then you have a lot owner who is causing a nuisance or hazard on the common property. Most default rules/articles/bylaws have generic provisions that would enable the owners corporation to issue a notice to comply.
I would first have a talk about the issue flagging an intention to get the opinion of the Food Authority if there is no obvious improvement. Next, I would call the Food Authority. Next, if the Food Authority has told the OC that the rubbish area is not properly organised, I would issue the notice to comply. Finally, if the notice is ignored, you have two routes it seems to me 1) the Tribunal could issue orders or 2) the Food Authority can issue its own orders. You could try both.
Whereas 20 years ago it might have made sense to heat pool water directly with flat plate solar heat collectors, it might now make more sense to fill the roof with solar PV electricity generation and then use heat pumps closer to the pool to heat the water. When the pool water is up to temperature, the electricity generation can be running other things such as ventilation and lighting of an underground carpark, corridor lighting, lifts etc. Any excess generation can be exported to receive a feed-in tariff (FIT). The FIT might not be much these days but it is better than nothing.
If you have a gas-fired, reticulated hot water system for the block, the solar PV could be running heat pumps to replace that gas for a substantial saving to owners.You could include among the financial statements send out with the meeting notice the listing of units and their financial status. Most likely most have balances of $0.00 but some will be a few cents or a few dollars ahead or behind, and then one will be clearly well in arrears.
And how are they “drinking on the owners’ tab”? Is there a line item in the budget for booze?
Our committee gave up involving the strata manager in our meetings years ago. We just get on with organising meetings ourselves. We just send the minutes to the manager to keep with our our other records after we are done.
On rare occasions we might need to involve the manager if we think we will need their advice. Even then, we usually ask them questions ahead of the meeting rather than having them at the meeting or involved in the mechanics of calling a meeting.
…So what we really need to know is whether the SM can be forced to provide this information….
Certainly the information should be forthcoming to any committee member. The committee can and should demand to see the info. If the manager can’t provide it, then they should investigate what would seem to be a serious problem. It is possible the committee doesn’t know that they can download all the financial statements at any time they care to do so. The committee member may or may not feel like sharing with you. If they committee does not feel they can ask, they need to be reminded that they are in charge exercising the functions of the owners corporation, not the strata manager. Too often the manager is the tail wagging the owners corporation dog.
Since the trees are tall, it is quite possible that they cannot be removed without council permission. Where I am (ACT) there is a tree protection act and any tree above a certain height is automatically a ‘regulated tree’ and permission is required to remove it. Legal penalties apply if one damages or removes a regulated tree without permission from our local government. The act specifies the criteria by which permission to remove can be given. The presumption is that large trees are protected and you have to make a convincing case for their removal. I would check to see if you have something similar where you are. One phone call should be enough.
If the trees are on common property, then the owners corporation would have to approve their removal. Even if those who want to remove the trees were to apply for permission to remove them and received that permission, they would not be able to removed them. Only the land owner could do that. The land owner is the owners corporation, not any individual members of the owners corporation.