Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
PS. if the wiring does need maintaining or repair and it is a lot owner’s responsibility, the OC might be able to require the lot owner to bring it up to scratch. OC rules (AKA by-laws) often state that a unit/lot owner must repair and maintain the lot in good condition.
I would suggest that if all the lots or a subset of lots all need the same work, then it might be in everyone’s interest for the EC to tell everyone that you are looking into the matter, that it appears to be a lot owner responsibility, that owners will be required to do the work if advised that it is necessary maintenance, that the EC will obtain quotes to do all the work at once so that there will be an economy of scale to save each lot owner some money, while ensuring a safety upgrade is uniformly applied for the whole building. I would check what your legislation says about the OC providing services to lot owners. In the ACT there is a section of the Act about the OC agreeing to provide services and then billing for it.
@taps said:
Thank you PeterC.i should have added that the wiring in the ceiling only services that townhouse. I looked at LPI for pre-1974 as we are 1971 building and the wording is somewhat confusing but it says something along the lines of
if the wiring only services that lot then it’s the owners responsibility – and i have something in my head from years ago that this is still the case for this lot. Albeit this wiring is in the ceiling / roof cavity.I can’t speak for non-ACT, but that accords with my expectation. Here, utility connections that only service one unit are the unit owner’s responsibility to maintain.
I do see your point PeterC that if it was ‘code’ then and doesn’t need upgrading – but i think that the building inspector who did the report was being cautious and when it comes to what is standard now to what was there is always changes.
If anyone has some input or can point me in the right direction for the rules? much appreciated.
It might well be that the building inspector was making an entirely reasonable recommendation that it would be a good idea to bring old wiring up to current standard. If anything suggested that the old wiring needed maintenance work, then the maintenance would have to meet the current standards anyway.
Adding insulation might well require a wiring upgrade anyway.
Usually, there is no obligation to upgrade anything to current building standards if maintenance or repair is not needed. IE if something still meets the standard that it met when installed you don’t need to do anything. If you were to do new work, the new work would have to meet current standards.
Eg. When our mid-70s townhouses were built the balcony railings met the standard of the time. Now, when a unit is rebuilding a balcony due to rotten timbers, they have to meet the current standard which includes a higher railing.
Similarly, our original windows had 3mm glass. There is no obligation to change it but if you break a window that window’s glass must be replaced with thicker or laminated glass that meets the current standard.
If you have no roof insulation, then you would be crazy not to install some. Insulation standards might drive rewiring to current standards if the insulation would have to go over any of the wiring.
I don’t know which bits are OC responsibility and which are lot responsibilities. I could answer for the ACT on that but will leave that question to someone else.
In the ACT:
“S.33 Restriction on owners corporation during developer control periodAn owners corporation for a units plan must not, during the developer control period, do any of the following:(a) enter into a contract unless—
(i) the contract is disclosed in each contract to sell a unit in the units plan; and…
A developer or, if an owners corporation is established for the units plan, the owners corporation may apply to the ACAT for the authority to enter a contract during the developer control period.
The ACAT may authorise the owners corporation entering into the contract if satisfied that the terms of the contract are reasonable in all the circumstances…”
@JimmyT said:
@PeterC said:
I am reminded of A Merchant of Venice. Just think of the electricity as blood.I think what Peter means … is that you could tell them they can have the room but you will be putting a meter and timer on the electricity.
Oh, and you might warn them that work on the distribution panel – for OWNERS CORP electricity – could result in electricity outages at random times for unforseeable durations…
Actually, without remembering the exact quote or bothering to look it up, my memory of the play is that Portia argues that while Shylock (the developer) has shown he is entitled to take his pound of flesh (the server room), he has not shown any entitlement to take even one drop of blood (electricity), and he must not. IE. There might be a valid claim on the room but no validity to any claim on any supply of electricity. The OC is not obliged to give Shylock any blood/electricity and can prevent Shylock from taking any, even if Shylock/the developer is entitled to use the server room. So, perhaps the developer will need to cart in batteries if he wants to use electricity in the room.
I am reminded of A Merchant of Venice. Just think of the electricity as blood.
Yes, our examples of minor repairs done by residents have all been voluntary, not paid. If paid, I suggest that the EC would be wise to be very careful to make sure all is very transparent and explicit as arse-covering lest a suspicious and gossipy person runs around spreading rumours of impropriety and fraudulent behaviour. There will always be someone ready to assume the worst and tell everyone about it before getting the facts.
I always advocate talking to people if possible. I’d suggest asking the managing agent if they have had advice back from the EC. If not, ask the agent how long s/he would leave it before advising them that they have to comply. If s/he does not say s/he would advise, ask them if that is not risky, since the management company would be expected to provide expert advice. Perhaps talk to the manager’s boss.
Talk to other EC members. Ask what they have been told. If it is not very much sympathise that they seem to be being kept in the dark and explain that they are obliged to act in the interests of the OC, which includes complying with NCAT orders.
If you want something in writing after talking, tell them that you will send them an email summarising the conversation and asking them to confirm that you have understood correctly.
Where it is really minor, members of our EC with appropriate skills just do the work ourselves. Eg. We can replace light globes but we don’t do work that would require an electrician. Where someone else has some time, we are happy for the help. Eg. putting another coat of timber oil on the outdoor furniture in our communal BBQ area.
A bit of commonsense can determine what repair work does not involve any serious risks. You could do some arse covering by making an explicit resolution of the EC. Eg. To approve Josephine Bloggs to spend up to $50 to purchase timber oil and a brush and re-coat the picnic table, and to be reimbursed on presentation of a receipt to the treasurer.
The buck stops with the EC. The managing agent should cover its arse by making sure it has advised the EC correctly. If the EC decides to not comply with NCAT procedures, then its arse is uncovered.
Thank you Jimmy. That makes a bit more sense. I guess an EC, given notice of a substantial (>33%) minority of opposition to some proposition, would instead decide to put the matter to a general meeting to decide. That way the matter could be decided in the affirmative by, say, 55% or 65% (assuming the matter requires only an ordinary resolution).
However, what if the 34% of opposing owners know they would lose such a vote? Could they pre-emptively give notice that not only should the EC not decide themselves on the matter, they should also never decide to present a motion to a general meeting on the matter?
It sounds like there could be scope for game-playing!
I am surprised that NSW apparently has some mechanism to allow less than a majority of a general meeting to shut down discussion of some topic. Is that really true? What if the matter is a something that an OC can decide, a clear majority want to discuss it, and there is a motion put that they could vote on?
It seems conceivable that the matter is not a proper matter for an OC to decide. An OC can only conduct certain sorts of business. If so, I would have expected that a person objecting should put a procedural motion that the matter is ‘ultra vires’ – beyond the powers of the OC – and so should not be voted on. If that motion were lost, and the purported ultra vires motion were passed, then the person objecting could seek an order from the Tribunal to overturn the motion on the grounds that it was ultra vires and should not have passed.
If the majority make a decision that would unfairly disadvantage a minority the legal principle – that that the majority should not defraud the minority – could by applied by the tribunal when reviewing the decision.
I am in the ACT. We had an occasion when an owner, who would have had some proxies votes as well, went to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking orders that a general meeting not go ahead and not discuss a matter that she thought should not be put to a general meeting. The ACAT gave her short shrift and said that the OC could decide what to discuss and vote on at the properly constituted general meeting.
In the ACT, where I am, the Act states: “The executive committee of an owners corporation may appoint a member of the corporation to fill a casual vacancy on the committee until the next annual general meeting.”
‘May’ means the EC could carry on without replacing. The EC could find someone willing by whatever means it likes, which could be conducting a vote of the OC, but it is not obliged to do so.
In our OC, when an EC member resigned part way through the year recently, the remaining EC put a short item in our newsletter. We thanked the person who had resigned, we pointed out that we traditionally try to encourage someone from each of 5 zones in our large site to nominate to be on the EC and we pointed out that we had no-one from one of those zones. Consequently, we would encourage anyone who would like to see what it is like to be on the EC to let us know, particularly if they were from the ‘unrepresented’ zone. We pointed out that this was an ideal opportunity for someone to see what it would be like to be on the EC without committing to a whole year. We did not get any expression of interest so we carried on with the remaining EC members for the rest of the year.
As for ‘Tricky Rikky’, I think you could point out that when a time period is not specified the reasonable interpretation is that the thing would be done promptly without unnecessary delay.
I would think that the driver might be found liable and/or the parent of a too-young-to-be-unsupervised child. If the OC were found liable, rather than either the driver or parent, then that is what you have liability insurance for.
Perhaps some further traffic calming devices are required. These need not be speed humps. They could be obstacles that provide pinch points that force vehicles to slow and take turns to pass through.
I can’t comment on NSW Fair Trading requirement. You have my sympathy though about finding people prepared to do the work.
Our experience has been that it is hard to find good tradespeople prepared to do work that is more complex than handyman jobs but small beer for a builder who would rather be doing a whole new building.