Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Power tool noise is one thing, but concern for “chatting”, “sometimes into the evening”, “some in foreign language”, does sound to me like it might have a bit of of an odour about it.
Perhaps residents could propose a curfew for power tool use and hammering or place a limit on the number of hours in a day. There are at least 34 residents that are not these two gentlemen. While noise can be a serious issue, people living in close quarters can’t expect total silence either.
Perhaps these guys could be enlisted to make some outdoor furniture for the grounds?
Generally, building features only have to comply with the standards that applied when they were constructed. However, renovation or substantial maintenance has to comply with current standards. I don’t know if this balcony is original or whether it would have complied in 1983.
Is it possible that all other 36 balustrades have been replaced? Or, is it possible this one balustrade was replaced but not to the standard?
Perhaps balustrades were replaced because they were dangerous in some way other than not meeting the standard (say, rusted or rotten or loose or whatever). Then the replacements would have had to meet the standard even though that was not the reason for replacing them.
Is it actually the case that there are plenty of visitor spaces? Is it common or rare that the visitor spaces are all full, whether with proper visitors or a mix of residents and visitors? If there are plenty of spaces and rarely a problem, then I have sympathy for an EC’s reluctance to bother with pedantic enforcement.
On the other hand if insufficient parking for visitors is a frequent problem, then I would be rounding up support from other residents to demonstrate to the EC that they would be supported in taking action.
@rhea said:
Thanks Peter C, I understand your frustration. I am assuming there are owners like myself who are not well versed with the Strata law. For us some part of law does not makes much sense unless someone explains it, just like proudsceptic did.
Actually, the people who complain are those who have been here for many years and should know the drill. By contrast, people who are new to our place or strata in general are more likely to ask, in my experience.
Until recently we had had 40 years of resolutions of general meetings imploring cat owners to keep their cats in at night or have bells etc. Never worked. Couldn’t be policed or enforced. Also, in our area, research has shown that most predation of native animals by cats occurs by day. For example, our suburb is a hotspot for some relatively uncommon ground-feeding parrots.
Now our last AGM adopted a new enforceable rule (ACT-speak for by-law) which requires all animals to be confined to the unit area except when under control and supervision of a responsible person. The rule is species-neutral. It applies as much to a dog or cat or tortoise. Obviously a small tortoise is adequately controlled because it can be easily caught and picked up if it is wandering off to somewhere it shouldn’t go. Some well behaved dogs are OK off lead but others clearly need the lead to be ‘under control’. The main thing is that now, if the animal is unaccompanied, its owner is unambiguously in breach of the rule.
I have two neighbours whose cats are normally indoors but they go out on the common property with their owners. Those particular cats stick close by to their respective owners and that is quite OK within our rules. Others take their cats out on a lead. Some have cat runs that give free access to part of the garden of the unit but not the common property. One cat run is a simple DIY construction with chicken wire. Another is an elaborate commercial product that includes a section slung under the unit’s balcony letting the cat climb. Both these examples are barely visible from outside the unit areas.
Some cats that had been accustomed to roaming were ‘grandfathered’ so they can continue to do so till they die or leave. No new animals will be added to the grandfathered animals list.
I’m from the ACT so I won’t comment on the specifics of NSW legislation but I agree with the general thrust of PS’s reply. I have been a bit irritated on occasions by owners who complained that they had not had a chance to put a motion on the agenda before the AGM notice went out. My feeling is that such owners should have known the approximate date of the AGM ever since the previous AGM, since it was bound to happen approximately one year later. They could have provided their motion and any background material to the EC any time through the year and asked for it to be put on the next AGM agenda. If the matter was really pressing they could even have asked the EC to call a general meeting sooner just to consider their motion.
If the mediation is between the EC and the manager and the correspondence that you want to refer to is between those same two parties, I can’t see any problem at all. If you later want to use the emails in evidence at a hearing, then I doubt that the disclaimer would carry any weight. I think someone presiding over a hearing would ask the manager: “Well, did you write that to the EC or didn’t you?”
Based on ACT ACAT experience, I would expect it would only be for the ‘applicant’ and the ‘respondent’, one of which might be ‘the EC’. However, either party might invite others to observe or come for support or to be their representative.
Children playing with balls on the grassed areas is something we encourage in our OC.
@BONNIE L said:
…Now one of the owners… wants to call a general meeting to discuss the issue on which a few of us are seeking mediation and due process. Can this party call a general meeting on the same issue… Would have thought after the mediation would be a good time for a general meeting if everyone wants that?In the ACT, and probably similar elsewhere, it is possible to force the EC to call a general meeting with a petition signed by 25% of the owners. The petition must specify the matter to be put on the agenda. Otherwise, an individual could ask the EC to call a general meeting. If the EC is persuaded to do so, then it can but it is not obliged without the 25% petition. Of course the AGM must occur approx. 1 year after the last one (details vary from state to state about how much wobble room there is and other constraints on the timing).
I generally agree with PS. However, I (as Treasurer) keep more like 30% of the Admin fund budget rather than 10% as a buffer against anything unexpected from the Admin fund. That is not necessarily a capital expense eg. could be a legal expense for some matter that has to be attended to urgently. Our sinking fund does also have a healthy contingency component.
In the ACT there is nothing to say we can’t carry a comfortable surplus.
Meanwhile, here in the ACT, the appropriate resolution would do the following: 1) raise the levy, 2) allocate it to the sinking fund, and 3) amend the sinking fund plan so that the extra money corresponded to a plan to spend that amount on the stated purpose.
In the circumstances, I would say that it was obvious that this amount of money was levied for this purpose. So long as that amount was spent on that purpose, it doesn’t matter where it was put. If it was put in the Admin fund rather than the sinking fund, don’t worry about that and just spend the amount from the Admin fund for the reason the levy was raised.
Depends what needed doing. If it was routine but expensive maintenance with no particular urgency, then the EC should perhaps have called a general meeting or waited for the next AGM to approve it in the next year’s budget. If it was minor work that could be reasonably covered within a general maintenance item in the budget and it was wise or opportune to get on with the work, then I’d say the EC should do it.
If it was anticipated within a contingency component of the sinking fund plan then they could get on with it.
If the work was not anticipated or budgeted but not doing it would create a non-trivial safety risk, then they should get on with the work first and worry about how to pay for it second.
@JimmyT said:
Peter, your comments always take a more reasonable approach. I should always add the rider to mine “will this cause more grief and hassle than it’s worth?” And that’s something only the original posters can decide.
Thanks. Though I can be hard-nosed when appropriate. Sometimes it just has to go to the Tribunal. Now in the process of learning how things go when a unit owner fails to comply with a Tribunal order and we seek an enforcement order.
As a pedant, I suggest that the managing agent is not disinterested, even if they are uninterested. Perhaps you need to point out the distinction to them! However, the responsibility ultimately lands with the committee, unless over-ruled but a decision of a general meeting.
If the carpark is common property, and exclusive use of part of the common property is being given to one owner, then there is certainly a process required for that. The details of the process and who can exercise it depend on the state. If it is not a ‘minor use’ of common property, it requires a general meeting resolution anywhere.
Yes, the EC should do something. First put a note on the car if you don’t know whose it is. Talk then write to the car owner if you know who it is. You have a responsibility to make sure that safety features of the property are not compromised. If nice and polite gets no result then a ‘notice to comply’ or ‘rules infringement notice’ (depends on the relevant state jargon) is appropriate and the first step to taking legal action to get the car moved.
In the first instance get a paper trail of showing you are trying to get it moved.