Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In the ACT there is no obligation from the Act to get more than one quote for anything, or indeed any quote, though obviously not doing so would be a worry.
My immediate thought is that the manager might be accustomed to just running things for ECs that leave them to it. That is how most do it. Have you either just changed most of the personnel of the EC or just got a new managing agent within a management company?
I have found it can take a while for a new manager to realise that our EC is more hands-on than they are used to. Often the new manager is more accustomed to being criticised for not fixing things quickly than for not consulting more, but then they encounter the opposite.
So, my inclination is to not be too harsh, especially if they or you are new and not yet used to the other’s expectations. The managing agent would have a good idea of the reasonable costs for such work so you are probably getting a fair price. I suggest just talking about how you would like to handle things next time.
BTW The ACT doesn’t have NSW’s > or <100 unit distinction (On the other hand we have class A (generally flats arranged vertically) and class B (generally townhouses arranged horizontally).
Sometimes it becomes necessary and reasonable to be formal as per PS’s suggestion. Other times that can be overly bureaucratic. It would seem here that the informal approach has been working perfectly well and causing nobody any problem until this second person came along.
I would still say the key is that the first person’s use is reasonable, infrequent and not the cause of any complaint, so it was fine to carry on this way until the second person came along, and it might still be fine to continue this way. What person #2 wants is clearly different. It is not infrequent, occasional use; it is 100% of the time use. I would be just saying no to person #2 and preferring to stick with status quo for #1.
If #2 wants to make a fuss, then perhaps a solution would be to give everyone permission “to park one motor vehicle on the common property for a reasonable, low level of infrequent usage not exceeding an average of 2 days a month” (or some other formula that matches the actual low frequency of use by person #1). That would be fair and avoids an accusation of playing favourites. It would not subvert planning guidelines, or only very slightly. It would explicitly state the principle that residents should not expect to be able to use the common property for routine parking but it would recognise that it would be petty and pedantic to never allow it, not even for rare and unusual circumstances. At some time, nearly everyone needs to move their car out of the garage for some one-off or temporary unusual event – maybe having a fridge or couch delivered to there or while making a repair to the garage. This new by-law would allow person #1 to keep doing what they do within a limit that is agreed to cause little inconvenience to others but it would not allow people to turn their garages over to some other use while relying on the common property for parking.
Your scheme’s by-laws regarding pets could be strengthened. Do you have a by-law stating that pets: must at all times be constrained and on a leash whilst on common property; and that pets must not be permitted to damage or soil common property; and that pet excrement must be double bagged before being placed in the garbage receptacles?
You could also establish some norms that would save on administrative bother. Our OC also included in our rule (aka by-law) blanket approval for certain numbers and sorts of animals that would cover most instances of reasonable animal keeping. That way people would know what they can do without needing approval and we would not have lots of residents inadvertently breaching the rules while doing something reasonable. Explicit individual approvals are now only required if you want to have a larger than usual number of animals or an unusual sort of animal. Eg. You would still need to apply if you want to keep an elephant and the EC could still decide that it is reasonable to reject such an application. If you want to have a couple of budgies in a cage you don’t need approval but if you want a substantial aviary with very many birds, you would still need approval.
Sometimes it is hard to ‘legislate’ so precisely that you cover every possibility. It sounds like the permission granted to the person with two cars works because they understand that it is only to be used for unusual occasions. I assume that person can usually find a park elsewhere and the other owners were prepared to allow the common property to be used just for the occasional backup.
Perhaps that is the key. The person with the full garage is wanting to do all the time what the other person does only infrequently. So, not the same. If the person with the full garage looks like being serious about making a fuss, then perhaps the permission for the other person could be changed to specify that it is for infrequent use, only when street parking cannot be found and not to exceed some specified number of times per month.
As a general principle, I would say that you should always try to ensure that all residents have the opportunity to derive the same amenity from the common property. So, there is some unfairness about one have a parking privilege unavailable to others. On the other hand it sounds like this is not being abused by the person with two cars and it is working, so why not continue to allow it.
Depending on which state you are in the EC may or may not have the power to grant ‘minor uses’ of common property.
In any case, I doubt that the owner with one car and one garage would have much luck arguing that he should be allowed to park on the common property just because he prefers to use his garage for another purpose.
That said, the person with one garage and two cars is lucky that the EC has accommodated them. It could be argued that they knew they would have only one reliable parking space before they got their second car or before they bought the unit. What if everyone with one garage space got a second car?
As it happens, our household has three cars and two parking spaces. Fortunately, one of our neighbours, who is a relative, also has two parking spaces but only one car and they are happy for us to use their second space. Perhaps your person could arrange to rent or borrow or barter someone else’s garage.
I have heard Chris Kerin of Kerin-Benson Lawyers talk on this topic. He sounded very reasonable and apparently specialises in dealing with strata defects. A few years ago he gave some helpful written advice on a defects matter for our OC. Perhaps try him.
If 4 steps are the only impediment to the entire building being wheelchair friendly, perhaps those four steps could be replaced by a permanent ramp? If the steps are wide enough, perhaps one side could be a permanent ramp and the other side remain steps. I would be putting it to the OC that this might be a good thing for the building in the long term, not just a benefit for the particular residents that need it just now.
As an OC cost spread among all owners it should not cost too much. For those who think they would never use it, perhaps they can be consoled by the idea that the value of their unit would rise.
I suggest doing the work for the EC. Find out what a good permanent solution would cost, talk to neighbours about it, then put a proposal to the next general meeting. If a general meeting votes to install, the EC has to do it.
Our OC went through a multi-stage process of reviewing our ‘rules’, ACT-speak for ‘by-laws’. We had a mix of default and our own customised rules that were adopted at our first general meeting in 1976. None had changed or been added since.
We first proposed a set of amendments that we thought would be utterly uncontroversial. These were mainly just directly substituting the current default rules for the nearly equivalent old default rules and making some other amendments that merely modernised the language to be consistent with the current Act. A few rules were rescinded because they were unambiguously out of date. For example, some were redundant because their provisions had become part of the body of the Act so the rule would have no effect anyway since the provision in the Act took precedence. Others referred to activities or bodies that only existed during the development and construction phase and were no longer relevant.
With owners accustomed to the process, we proposed another set of changes that addressed matters that were not previously covered but had occasionally been uncertain. These sought to document and put beyond doubt various matters that had been established practice.
Then we just did the animal keeping rule. At earlier stages we foreshadowed that this one would be done later since there was more diversity of opinion on this matter. After quite a few rounds of drafts and comments etc. this one passed, though with a lower level of support than the earlier easier matters.
We were glad we had done this in stages because the whole lot might have been derailed if we had tried to do it all at once.
Did the OC not decide to do and fund the ‘building works’ (whatever they are)? If so, was it not made clear what the temporary alternative access arrangements would be? From the sounds of it, restoring the grassed area after the works end would be part of the overall works cost.
@rfraser said:
Hopefully the doonas do not descend from the balcony.Apparently airing donnas is something the Swiss do when it is sunny. Of all the things that could fall from a height and hit me on the head, I suppose a doona would be one of the better things!
Our OC once had a proposal for some substantial works which were to be put to a general meeting. We gave more than the minimum notice and it was not close to christmas but otherwise, the person who objected characterised our situation almost exactly as you have. I was on the EC so on the ‘other side’ of a closely similar situation. The objector applied to the ACAT (we are in the ACT) for an order to halt the meeting. An urgent hearing was called. She could show no procedural defect so the tribunal ordered that the meeting go ahead. Having gone ahead, if the vote went against the objector, she could go to the tribunal seeking an order deeming the motion to have failed on grounds that it was unreasonable for it to have passed. IE a merits review. The tribunal took the view that the motions should be put to a meeting since it was possible that the owners themselves would decide that the motion should not be supported. Alternatively, the motion might pass with such strong support that the opponents would be convinced that this was the wish of the owners. IE the tribunal took the view that it should not preempt the democratic process.
Is it possible to lean over the edge and check that the balconies below are unoccupied before cleaning? If so, perhaps just an admonishment to please check below before sluicing?
I recall a Swiss colleague many years ago saying that apartments there had rules about which day of the week was permitted for airing donnas over the balcony. Perhaps there could be certain allotted hours on a certain day of the week when washing is permitted that might drop water below?
@Madame_Chaire said:
@airman342 said:
I realise that cats do not have a major impact on the common areasI disagree…. i smell them every day when i arrive home, clean up their mess in our common area garden, and generally shoo them away from preying on birds and possums. love cats but hate how owners let them run free.
Risk of toxoplasmosis, especially serious if pregnant and keen on gardening. In our OC we have patches of remnant bush in the city with bird, lizards, and so on. We get quite rare ground-feeding parrots. We have a blue tongue eating the snails just now living in our garden. I don’t want any of that eaten by a roaming cat. Plenty of my neighbours have cats that only go on common property on a lead or well-behaved and stick close by to their owners. A few cats accustomed to roaming are ‘grandfathered’ and allowed to continue roaming but, in time, we will have no more roaming pets of any kind. All may enjoy the common property when accompanied by a responsible person.
In the ACT, the strata manager is not permitted to be appointed as proxy for an owner but anyone else can be. Eg. a non-owner agent or friend of an absent owner can be appointed as that owner’s proxy.
Is the strata manager also an owner? If not, I would be surprised if the manager could be chair and secretary. I have not paid attention to the details of the changes to the NSW legislation. However, even when all the EC functions are delegated to a manager, you still have to have an EC with chair, secretary and so on, and they still have the responsibility to see that their functions are being performed, even if that only means observing that the manager is doing the delegated functions.