Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I see no reason why the OC could not approve subject to various other approvals such as DA at a general meeting. That can be very explicit in the wording of the resolution.
What about reversing the order of things? The OC could vote to give approval conditional on receiving the appropriate Development Approval, engineer’s report, maintenance or repair requirements, and so on.
That is how our OC does it. In our case the Executive Committee (EC) has authority to approve unit alterations on behalf of the Owners Corporation (OC). The EC is constrained in what it can approve by various resolutions of the OC directing the EC to only approve after consulting the immediately surrounding neighbours or anyone else who might be affected and within various guidelines on architectural style, colour and materials.
Sometimes we go back and forth a few times informally with an owner before they present a proposal that the EC is likely to approve or able to approve. Proposals are approved subject to compliance with any local government requirements such as DA, which covers engineering, safety etc. Approval is also made subject to restoring any damage to common property that might occur during construction.
That Qld advice sounds right for the ACT, so that’s more than half way to Vic.
Whatever the situation, as far as the OC is concerned the debt goes with the unit/lot so the buyer is stuck with any debt associated with the unit if it has not been deducted from the purchase price and paid during the conveyancing.
We learned that when the lawyer doing our conveyancing had their trust account frozen by the local law society on the day of our settlement. I have no idea what our lawyer had done or was suspected of having done but the cheques for several thousand dollars that were deducted from the purchase price to pay the previous owner’s outstanding levies and rates were also frozen and we had to write pleading letters to the OC and local government to be given additional time. Eventually the accounts were unfrozen and we didn’t have to pay but it was a worry for a while when we had no spare cash at all.
Back to the question: If there is a contract in place and then a levy arrives with a due date before the settlement date, then I would guess the seller would pay and its just the seller’s bad luck that this arrived before responsibility passed to the buyer. The seller could just stick with the contract and ignore the levy, but then the buyer’s conveyancer could, I think, deduct the overdue debt from the purchase price in order to pay the money owing to the OC on the unit. I guess the seller could decide to pull out of the sale but they would still be stuck with paying the levy. All that is only guessing though. I have only ever bought one unit, the one I am in.
@JimmyT said:At the end of the day, your investment of time, money and energy with either pay off or it won’t but, at the very least, you will have learned something about yourself and about other people.
And that’s worth something.
I agree with all JT said. I recently resigned from our EC after being a member for 9 years and treasurer for 8 of those. I had no background in law or finance but I learned quite a bit about both, which was interesting. ‘It is not rocket science’, nor even the kind of science I did for my day job. We had some really big issues and improvement projects that took a great deal of work but we got them done. Owners are generally very happy with what was achieved.
I did conclude that at any given time there will be 5% who are completely resistant to reason and/or seriously lacking in normal social skills. EC members get exposed far more to such people and it can wear you down. I am glad of it though. I learned a lot about people that I had not seen through work or other aspects of life.
I don’t doubt that ECs can end up with such people dominating within the committee too. They can be aggressive, assertive and alternately* diplomatic or unpleasant. The bullies I have encountered have come from high-powered positions and were used to being taken seriously and getting their way. Being very plausible, they could sway more mild-mannered members for a while. The solution is to out-vote and out-lobby them, whether they are in the EC or outside of it, but it takes determination and many would rather walk away. They only have any power if nobody stands up to them using facts and reason. I am pleased to have hung in there and achieved a lot while on our EC but I need a break from it now.
*In one recent example, the guy does seem to alternate between on one hand giving me compliments for various achievements and being genial face to face, and on the other hand presenting written formal-looking reports to the committee that would, at face value, demonstrate that the entire EC and me in particular as treasurer have neglected various serious obligations.
In an earlier example, a different, no longer current EC member had his own rather eccentric interpretation of a particular provision of the Act. His insistence sufficiently unsettled some other EC members that it held up a review of our Rules for quite a while. Common sense, our managing agent, a strata specialist lawyer’s advice, the content of an OCN newsletter article, Rules that had survived Tribunal scrutiny and Rules adopted without controversy by other OCs were all inconsistent with this guy’s interpretation but none of this was enough to shake his confidence that he was right. In the end, I wrote to the Attorney-General, quoted this EC member’s legal argument verbatim and on the other hand presented the usual interpretation. I asked the A-G, whose department had not long previously reviewed the Act, for advice about who was right. Only with that advice in hand were we able to proceed with our internal review. Even so, our guy wrote to the A-G to let him know that he was wrong.
All quite funny in retrospect but stressful and irritating at the time when trying to get on with useful things.
@tharra said:
@Whoopi said:
My advice to anyone ever considering buying into Strata is DON”T. You place your money and your property in the hands of volunteers, untrained in any way for the job . No business acumen, no building experience and no people skills. Emotionally immature despots who are attracted to being on a committee due to a hunger for control, power and the access to the considerable money available to them.I feel for you in your situation but to lump all strata schemes in the “run by incompetent tinpot dictators” pile does disservice to those of us who strive to keep their strata schemes running as smoothly as possible by volunteering their professional skills & experience to their owner’s corporations.
At their best, strata schemes allow neighbours to create a greater sense of community and to make democratic decisions about how to maintain and improve shared facilities for the good of all. However, there will always be some people with less than ideal character traits, fortunately in a minority in most places.
Whoopi appears to believe a committee or committee member is not complying with the Act and LotL appears to believe a strata manager is not complying.
We might be able to be more helpful if we know what they are supposed to have done or not done.
I agree with LP. Individual meters are better. Fairer and more environmentally friendly. Our townhouses were built with individual meters but for many years the OC paid a single water bill for the whole site. Eventually it was resolved at a general meeting to be billed individually. Part of what convinced people was that a small number of units were found to have been consuming very much more than the average. It was annoying to those who had been making effort to conserve water to learn they were subsidising profligate use by others.
@chai said:
The committee of management of a new mixed commercial & residential building in Victoria has disallowed the application of a protective paint on the floor of a resident’s car parking lot…The reason for disallowing the floor paint was based on the OC rule: “An owner or occupier of a Lot must not in any way alter the external appearance of a Lot or any structure on a Lot including by any addition of any nature, change of colour, finish or decoration of any external wall or woodwork” (think is from the Victorian model rules)…
The committee can’t approve something that it thinks would be contrary to the rules. However, a general meeting resolution trumps the committee. It might be that the committee would agree that this protective paint would be a good idea but it believes it is acting properly by not exceeding its powers.
Regardless of the committee’s view, a general meeting could resolve that protective paint may be applied to parking spaces (perhaps specifying only certain locations or requiring a particular colour). It might be done as an amendment to the rules of the OC or it might be sufficient for the OC to resolve that a particular paint application would not contravene the rule because the protective paint would match the concrete and actually prevent more substantial alteration of appearance by oil stains that would be more difficult to remove. Such a resolution would provide guidance to the committee as to how the OC wishes the EC to interpret the OC’s rules.
I am not at all sure about the following since our strata insurer did pay up for what I thought was trivial damage from a small falling branch from an ordinary tree. However, I would have thought that the logic would go like this:
1) Was the thing that was damaged something that was insured against insurable events? I’d say no. The strata buildings and associated structures and landscaping should be covered by the strata insurance for damage caused by insurable events such as impact from things (falling branches, lightening strikes, meteors etc). Somebody’s car is not part of the insured strata property.
2) Would it be covered by the strata insurance public liability component? I’d say maybe. Liability insurance doesn’t pay out for every unfortunate occurrence. First you have to be found liable. If somebody falls down the stairs because they were simply clumsy, that is unfortunate but not the strata’s fault. However, if somebody falls down the stairs because the carpet was worn and loose and created a hazard that the OC should have repaired, then the OC might be found liable for the injury, and the liability insurance would prevent the OC becoming bankrupt.
So, if the tree was in poor condition and in decline and particularly if an arborist had already advised that the tree should be pruned or removed, then the OC might be liable, and the liability insurance component might pay.
If it was just an ordinary tree and there was no reason to suspect that it presented any more risk than any other ordinary tree, then I would suggest that the OC is not liable if someone parks under it. It’s just bad luck that a branch fell on the car. That a branch fell and did some damage is not the OC’s fault so liability insurance would not cover it.
Perhaps you can claim against your own car insurance or get advice from them. I am sure they would be happy to push your claim off to some other insurer but they might also be able to state more confidently whether the strata insurance should cover it, as they are in the same business.
I think our strata insurance paid for damage to a parked car from a falling branch on common property. At the time I was surprised at the claim and payout because the damage was so minor. If it had been my car I would not have bothered or perhaps even noticed the tiny dint.
I also don’t know if there is a blanket ban in NSW strata. Assuming there isn’t anything specific to strata, then washing cars on a hard surface with soap running into stormwater drains might well be contrary to state or local council regulations for anyone.
A common owners corporation rule/by-law/article is a catch-all requirement to comply with any law in force in the relevant location. So, it might be enforceable by that means or by just phoning the council and asking them to advise the OC in writing if it would not be permitted.
Does the OC have a grassed or gravel location where car washing could be permitted? Obviously there is demand for somewhere to wash cars. Perhaps people are washing on the carpark because they think they should not drive onto the grass to wash their cars. If that would risk creating an ugly track, perhaps two neat strips of pavers or concrete could be put down to designate a one-at-a-time car-washing spot? Perhaps uphill of a garden bed that could do with regular watering?
There is an absolute obligation on the OC to repair and maintain the common property. However, that does not mean everything has to be in perfect, pristine, as good as the day it was built condition.
In the case of this fascia and gutter, the question I would ask is: Since it is acknowledged that the work needs to be done eventually, what is the risk that the overflowing gutter does further damage that ultimately makes the job bigger and more expensive than it would be if the work were done sooner? That someone is selling is irrelevant to a decision about whether this is a job that can be reasonably deferred for a few years or should be done promptly. If the job would be urgent without this person selling, then get on with it. If the job is not urgent, then don’t put up with being bullied if the OC has already made a plan and recorded its reasonable decision.
Since the matter has been discussed at AGMs, I assume the decision to anticipate doing this work in a few years time was minuted, ideally with something recorded about why the job was not urgent but nonetheless could be reasonably anticipated in the next few years. Even if it was not a resolution, if the minutes record discussion of an anticipated cost of around $30,000 in a few years time for this anticipated work, then nothing is hidden. The seller can say that the OC is aware of this particular bit of work and has a plan to fix it. The buyer can anticipate a contribution will be needed later.
If the plan is discoverable in the records of the OC, then I would suggest standing back and not saying anything beyond what is explicit in those records. It is also important for the OC or committee to avoid getting too chatty with prospective purchasers and being exposed to accusations of having misrepresented the property.
By the way, does the OC have a sinking fund plan? This is exactly the sort of thing that should be covered by a sinking fund plan. Modest contributions to the sinking fund are made every year and the plan covers known expenses such as the guttering in a few years and perhaps something else that will be expensive 10 years from now. You can also have a contingency component to cover you for unexpected repairs.
A good sinking fund plan is very equitable because it spreads the cost of repairs evenly across all owners past, present and future.
Sorry, I don’t know about the possible added insurance requirement.
This is one of those really fraught topics. I have run into this twice from the other side.
Once, I tried to help the unit owner. I went to her unit to listen to the noise she complained of. There was an audible noise from pipes which may or may not have had anything to do with adjacent units but it was so slight that I would not have noticed if it had not been very quiet and it was pointed out. I was young at the time, had excellent hearing and was much younger than the unit owner.
Another time more recently the complainant was bothered by his neighbour’s air-conditioner. I borrowed a sound db meter from labs where I worked. The levels, even close up, were barely above ambient noise levels in a quiet suburb. The EC said it would only do anything about it if the sound level at the boundary of his unit exceeded local government standards. The unit owner got some expert in to measure. The unit owner reported back that noise levels were far below the levels that would trigger grounds for a complaint according local government, yet he still thought we should impose a higher standard. We did not act on it and he instead installed double-glazing, which is always a good idea in any case for insulation in chilly ACT.
All this is not to say that SuzieQ might not have very reasonable grounds for complaint, unlike these neighbours of mine! I think ultimately though, the onus is on SQ to demonstrate that there is an unreasonable level of noise above some objective standard. If it is bad enough, it might be simply obvious to any visitor. Otherwise getting an objective measure or making one’s own modifications on the inside of the unit might be a way forward, I think. Whether there are modifications that would help, again requires some professional advice. The SC’s offer to share the cost of some professional advice seems quite reasonable to me, unless there is such an obviously gross problem that any visitor would agree.
If you are talking about work of the order of $25K then you should be getting several quotes. You should be insisting that the service provider has appropriate trade licensing and their own insurance. Ask for a copy of the certificate of currency.
For very minor jobs it can be hard to find a tradesperson willing to do the job and you can be glad to find just one. Then the SC might just have to make a judgement about whether the one quote is reasonable or not.