Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Could the owners corp approve a temporary modification (say a timber ramp) on the condition that it is to be installed at the unit owner’s or tenant’s expense and must be removed by the owner of the unit when the tenant is no longer resident?
Is there allocated parking for your unit? If so, why not use that? If you have more vehicles than allocated spaces, perhaps another unit has the opposite situation and would let you use their spare space, either just to be nice or by renting it to you.
I am not sure about hot water but the supply of electricity to premises/units behind an owners corporation meter amounts to an embedded network, for which there are rules administered by the Australian Energy Regulator.
In the ACT the term ‘rules’ is used for what is ‘by-laws’ or ‘articles’ in other jurisdictions. I expect principles remain the same. So, for example, it is possible to have a rule/bylaw/article that has been properly adopted by the correct class of general meeting resolution that has some flexibility/judgement for the committee built in.
So, just for an example, in the set of townhouses where I live, one of our rather minor rules states: “A unit owner must only store bins for rubbish and recycling within the unit area, unit subsidiary or such other areas as may be approved from time to time by the Owners Corporation (OC). Such areas may include purpose-built bin enclosures, the carports or shared carparks on common property and other places where bins can be stored unobtrusively without affecting the use and enjoyment of another unit owner.” A similar formula is used for other rules where the OC can (dis)approve this or that.
The Act in the ACT says that when the Act does not specify that a decision requires a resolution of a general meeting, and in the absence of a direction from the OC in the form of a general meeting resolution, then the committee exercises the functions of the OC as it considers appropriate. So, in the example above, it would be possible for an ordinary resolution of a general meeting to direct the committee to allow or disallow the storage of bins in a particular place. In the absence of such a direction, the committee can exercise its judgement about whether a unit owner storing their bin in some location would comply with the rule – the committee must decide whether storing a bin in some location is ‘unobtrusive’ and not ‘affecting the use and enjoyment of another unit owner’.
We had a matter go to the ACT tribunal (not about bins) where our argument about a similarly formulated rule was accepted and the unit owner was ordered to comply. The decisions of the committee were constrained by OC resolutions but within those constraints, the committee could exercise the functions of the OC.
When I was treasurer where I live, every proposed budget for an AGM was accompanied by a plain english explanation of what the various line items were about, how some came to be a bit over or under budget and drawing attention to any that were proposed to differ significantly from the previous year with reasons given. If the committee or treasurer has not done that, you should find them and ask why not. Furthermore, the managing agent is the servant of the whole Owners Corporation, not just the committee, and they should be able to answer questions of the sort you have asked. Alternatively, the manager should refer to the question to the committee to answer for you.
Just to reinforce one of JT’s points: The strata manager works for you and the committee can and should make decisions and direct the strata manager. Don’t let the tail wag the dog. If you have sent two nice informal parking notices around, it is time to get serious. Don’t ask. You direct the SM to issue notices to comply. Make it a decision of the committee taken at a properly convened meeting with minutes. Let the minutes record that the decision to issue notices to comply was made after having sent the previous circulars. Make sure the text of the notices to comply contains all that is required by the Act for a proper notice.
It is right and proper for the SM to give advice, but the committee makes the decision on behalf of the Owners Corporation and does not have to follow the manager’s advice. The SM is your employee and does have to follow directions. The only exception is if you were telling them to do something that would be illegal.
Is it really necessary for the mobility scooter to be in an enclosed space? If so, could the scooter be accommodated in the enclosed garage space? I assume the resident’s car could be accommodated in the carport space. That would be a simple solution requiring no change to the building’s appearance and no expense to the unit owner. If I were another owner, I would prefer that solution. A unit owner might prefer to keep both their vehicles in enclosed spaces rather than both under cover but only one enclosed, but that is not a compelling reason for other owners to accommodate that preference.
If it really is necessary to enclose the space, does it have to be a highly visible or permanent change? Where I live, some open sided carports have used concrete reinforcing mesh fixed to the open side to provide security while retaining the open appearance from further away. This is inexpensive and reversible. A condition of permission to do this could be that the appearance of the carport is restored to original when the current owner is no longer the owner or no longer needs to have the space enclosed.
I agree with all JT said. Furthermore, in standard meeting procedure, it is the chair who issues the minutes and vouches for their accuracy (although amendments might be voted on and made at the next AGM). I would redraft them. Get the other committee members to proofread for you. Then the committee can direct the manager to reissue the corrected minutes, certified as accurate by you as the chair of the meeting.
Assert yourselves, politely but firmly, and you might get better service next time.
Does anyone ignore the rule and, if so, does the rule get enforced?
In the ACT such a rule would be of no effect because the Act invalidates rules that have the effect of banning the installation of ‘sustainability infrastructure’ on common property. In my opinion, an ACT rule that specifies a style or type or location for clothes lines might be valid but not an out-right ban.
Similar considerations apply for someone wanting to install a charging outlet for an electric vehicle. The owners corporation could do some useful work assessing the capacity of the building’s supply to support likely increases in loads from air-con, EVs and possibly replacing gas hot water with heat-pump hot water systems. As we need to decarbonise over the next few decades, it is a logical consequence that gas and petrol need to be phased out in favour of electric equivalents powered from increasingly renewable generation.
In the case of EVs, it might work out that the building’s supply could cope if everyone had a single phase 10A outlet in their allocated parking space but not if everyone insisted on 32A three phase. Since 10A single phase trickle charging is enough to add almost 200km of range overnight, much faster charging rates are not justified in locations where cars are left for extended periods.
This reference https://www.wattblock.com/recharge.html discusses processes to phase in EV charging but could be applied to other loads such as air-con.
The ‘legal person’ who owns the strata plan is ‘The Owners Corporation’. That ‘person’ can take out an insurance policy, just like any other person. Ownership is not ceded by taking out an insurance policy.
I had a neighbour who was a quiet as a mouse for months on end but once or twice a year had a seriously loud party. He was a lovely guy. His guests were all well behaved. He let the neighbours know and invited them to drop in. It did not precipitate a proliferation of party-holding by others. 99% of the time all was very quiet. I would stop fretting and let this one through to the keeper. If it becomes a too-frequent occurrence, then do something about it.
One of the default rules (aka by laws in other places) in the ACT is:
<b>”Illegal use of unit</b>
A unit owner must not use the unit, or permit it to be used, to contravene a law in force in the ACT.”
So, an option, in principle would be to issue a rules infringement notice in accordance with s.109 then go to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking an order to enforce the rule. If you are confident that the short term leasing contravenes “a law in force in the ACT” then this catch-all rule gives you a route to address it.
I don’t know and have not checked whether there has been any testing of this in the Tribunal. You can search through published decisions at the Tribunal’s web site.
Alternatively, you can pay a lawyer to do this for you.
<b>”109 Breach of rules—rule infringement notice</b>
(1)This section applies if the executive committee of an owners corporation reasonably believes that—
(a)the owner or occupier (the <b><i>person</i></b>) of a unit has contravened a provision of the corporation’s rules; and
(b)the circumstances of the contravention make it likely that the contravention will continue or be repeated.
(2)The owners corporation may, if authorised by an ordinary resolution of the executive committee, give the person a notice (a <b><i>rule infringement notice</i></b>) requiring the person to remedy the contravention.
<i>Note</i> If a form is approved under s 146 for this provision, the form must be used.
(3)A rule infringement notice must state the following:
(a)that the owners corporation believes the person is contravening, or has contravened, a provision of the rules;<span class=”Apple-converted-space”> </span>
(b)the provision of the rules the owners corporation believes is, or was, contravened;
(c)details sufficient to identify the contravention;
(d)if the owners corporation believes the contravention is continuing—the period (which must be reasonable in the circumstances) within which the person must remedy the contravention;
(e)if the owners corporation believes the contravention is likely to be repeated—that the person must not repeat the contravention;
(f)if the person does not comply with the notice—
(i)the person commits an offence; and
(ii)the owners corporation may, without further notice, apply to the ACAT for an order in relation to the failure to comply with the notice.
(4)If a rule infringement notice is given to a person following a request under section 111, the owners corporation must, not later than 14 days after the day the request was received, tell the person who made the request that the notice has been given.”
I agree with Cosmo and was about to suggest the same. All strata legislation has catch-all provisions about no interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other residents. If you can’t easily use a shared driveway because of vehicles parked so as to block the way, that is a nuisance and interference with your reasonable use of that common property.
I assume the poster in not in the ACT (from referring to SC rather than EC). I am sure JT’s advice is correct for NSW.
Just to note some state differences: In the ACT (UTMA Sch2.4), “the executive committee of an owners corporation may approve an application by a member of the corporation to use the common property if— (a) the use applied for is minor; and (b) the use will not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other members of the corporation.” An awning extending over common property is given as one of the examples.
Regardless of the approval mechanism, conditions on approval may be applied such as requiring the use of a preferred colour and design (to maintain the appearance of the common property and thereby ensure that enjoyment of the common property is not interfered with) and requiring the unit owner (and any future owner) to undertake any necessary maintenance, to keep it in a good state of repair, and to restore the common property if the awning is removed.