Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Out of curiosity I had a quick look at the downloaded document. On p.7 of the summary/discussion paper it says: “Units and Townhouses Allotments (not in a strata scheme) and allotments less than 400m2 a maximum of one dog with a maximum weight of 11kg.” which suggest no effect on strata schemes. However, the exclusion of strata schemes seems to be omitted from a corresponding line of the policy document that is an attachment to the the summary/discussion. I would seek clarification on that point as well.
Similar rules adopted by owners corporations have been tossed out by the ACT Tribunal. The weight of a dog is a poor indication of its suitability for apartment living. Some large dog varieties tend to be happy, healthy and quiet lazing about an apartment all day while some small dog varieties tend to go stir-crazy and disturb everyone.
I suggest responding to the council with that comment, if nothing else.
If you were in the ACT, the OC has the right to enter your unit area only to undertake repair and maintenance of the common property (and a few other specified circumstances) at a reasonable time after giving reasonable notice (in one part of the Act) or written and 7 days (in another part of the Act). I would be surprised if Qld does not have some similar provision – a right to enter balanced by a requirement for reasonable times and notice.
That the NSW Tribunal has power to enforce its orders but doesn’t is consistent with the advice we got from the ACT Tribunal. As noted above, it gave its reasons as being that ‘it was not sufficiently necessary to do so’ because there was an explicit process in the Magistrates Court Rules for a person to seek an enforcement order to enforce an order of either the Tribunal or the Magistrates Court. i.e. the explicit process takes precedence when there are two ways by which something might be done.
A Tribunal order to pay an amount to the owners corporation would also include a date by which that amount must be paid. I would say the person is not yet unfinancial unless that date has passed and the order has not been complied with.
As for being on the committee, I would be concerned if I were another committee member that the committee as a whole operates very carefully to avoid conflict of interest by the member with the order against them and that the committee clearly and transparently operates in the interest of the OC as a whole. The member should voluntarily absent themselves from committee consideration of matters relating to the Tribunal matter and that should be minuted. Regardless of what might be permissible (and I am not sure), I think it is a situation to avoid as far as possible.
Another way to view this is that the main cost to the OC would be running the dryers. If 5 of 8 are using dryers then only three have opted out of using the laundry communal facility. If those three have preferred the convenience of drying in their own unit, then that is their choice at their expense but the communal facility remains available to them, just as it always was, even if they choose to not use it.
Yet another way to view things: If the OC originally provided either washing machines or a place to house and operate one’s personal washing machine, but did not provide electric dryers but did provide sun- and wind-powered dryers (clotheslines), then it could be argued more forcefully that the electric dryers should be either removed or put on five kWh counters since electric dryers were not part of the the OC communal facility.
My experience with ignored Tribunal orders is as follows:
In the ACT.
The orders were against an individual owner (to remove an unapproved structure by a particular date), not the strata scheme.
In the Tribunal we (I) asked the Tribunal member, ‘If we get the orders we are seeking, and if those orders are not acted upon, can we (the committee) also have an order that would confirm that we can engage an appropriate tradesperson to enter the unit area (only access to the outside area needed) in accordance with section whatever it was of the Act to the remove the structure?’
The Tribunal member’s written Decision and Reasons set out how the Tribunal would have the power to make such an order but that it declined to do so because the Magistrates Court has a process for enforcing Tribunal orders so it was not sufficiently necessary for the Tribunal to give us the order we sought.
I appreciated that the Tribunal member went to considerable trouble to consider the matter and then lay out in detail the process for us to follow in order to get an enforcement order.
It was a bit of a bother but I found the ACT Tribunal helpful.I agree with webman that it is worth getting a fair estimate of the actual money involved. If someone has a tame electrician friend, they might wire in a temporary meter to see if you are talking about tens of dollars or thousands of dollars. Or, you can get cheap kWh counters that plug into individual power points so you can see what one run of the washing machine or dryer is using. Then multiply a reasonable guesstimate of numbers of runs over a year. I expect the dryers use considerably more than the washing machines. If nothing else, encourage the use of clothes lines – the most cost-effective, directly-renewably-powered, readily-available appliance there is.
Kodger,
I think you have answered your question. You have 3 members on your committee and only one opposed to the proposed course of action. Consensus is nice to aim for but not always achievable. Occasionally our committee would record in its minutes that a particular person dissented from a decision.
I wonder how restaurant and holiday accomodation review sites deal with defamation risk. I could submit all sorts of unjustified criticism of my last holiday destination or meal. Would the website publisher be held liable? How do they avoid being held liable?
The same question is relevant for situations where electric vehicles can’t be charged from outlets wired back to the meters of the individual units. Then, you would have outlets for vehicles out in the carpark wired back to the OC’s meter.
The solution is the same. A simple kWh meter can be put in line with each outlet (or one for the whole laundry). It can be read periodically and the relevant units billed pro-rata for the total cost to the OC, whether the outlet is in the allocated parking space of unit X or it has the washing machine belonging to unit X plugged into it.
There are fancier systems involving RFID cards for EV charging where different vehicles might use the same outlet and I expect the same could apply to washing machines. These systems record consumption to different users according to who tapped on and off.
Another option would be to make a reasonable estimate of the likely consumption of washing machines and dryers used for a certain number of hours a week (or measure the actual consumptions) and resolve to charge a fee to those using the laundry that would recoup that cost.
Parking rules, and other rules relating to the property, should be included in the By-Laws which every owner/tenant should have a copy of.
Should, but often don’t. Also, many people really don’t ‘get’ strata at all. It is often a matter of education required. People often need basic concepts explained. If they did the wrong thing, it is not necessarily due to malice or lack of care. It might be simple ignorance.
Where there is a problem but the SC is not acting, an option is to put a motion to the next general meeting directing the SC to take action (be specific about exactly what you want done). The SC exercises the functions of the OC and a general meeting of the OC is the superior decision-making body. So, it would have to act. If it still doesn’t when directed by the OC, you are on even stronger ground when going to the Tribunal.
I still reckon the decision about whether to take action depends on whether it is a problem now or likely to become one in the future. Where I am, we have several residents with more vehicles than they have allocated spaces but this has not caused any practical problem for residents or visitors. There is sufficient unallocated parking and street parking and some private arrangements between residents for unused allocated spaces. It has been like this for several decades so it seems unlikely to become a problem any time soon.
A middle course if it is not an immediate problem would be to write to the person parking on common property pointing out that they have no right to park where they are and no recourse if others park there and the OC might need to enforce its parking rules if demand for parking were to get tighter.
We have had some other serious parking issues but this was not one of them.
An option is to do nothing and see if the grumbler finds something else to worry about.