Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Very good. Thanks for the humour. I was pleased to see that many of those notes identified the author.
One of the more offensive things in strata-land is the anonymous note. If you can’t put your name to what you want to say, then perhaps you shouldn’t be saying it!
I would think that if the roof leaked due to storm damage, it is an insurable event, and the structure of the building should be repaired by the OC covered by the insurance. If there is a problem with the insurance, the OC should ensure the damage is fixed promptly in any case. Everything the OC is responsible for should be fixed, but that might not include the paint in the unit. If, the roof damage were not fixed promptly and then further damage to private property occurred due to what by now is a known, unrepaired defect of the common property, then the OC would have to fix the private property that was damaged.
@Kenny R said:
I am an EC member and we have a potential issue with continuing maintenance to an individual (town house) owner’s wooden patio deck and railings to which the owner alone has exclusive use. Re there any grounds for having this being made the owner’s responsibility? This is the only townhouse in a complex of 12 that has such an area.Where are the unit boundaries? I am aware that NSW does not have the ACT’s class A/B unit distinction but if the townhouse has an area of land around it that is part of the unit area and the deck is within that area, doesn’t that make it the unit owner’s responsibility to maintain? It certainly would be here in the ACT.
On the the other hand, if the deck extended out onto common property, then the unit owner should only have exclusive use of it through the granting of a special privilege* to use that area of common property and the conditions of use (such as maintenance) should be part of the motion that granted that permission.
*In some circumstances in the ACT permission could be via an alternative mechanism of a ‘minor use’ if certain conditions are met, but the motion should still say something about maintenance.
@Dragandeewhy said:
A push biker will openly show discomfort in the presence of a person who smokes while he or she inhales with the full capacity of his her lungs the fumes of peak hour traffic, thinking that he is living a healthy life style. Etc etc etc.
I am sure your hypothetical cyclist would much prefer that the other vehicles on the road were other cyclists or electric vehicles not producing the fumes.
I agree that a concentration of power is not healthy. It can happen without malice, simply from one person doing such a good job and being so willing that everyone else is content to leave all the work to that one person. It all works fine until that person eventually gets worn out/fed up/ousted in a coup/gets sick/moves elsewhere, and there is nobody who knows how anything works to continue.
I can sympathise with the intent of the 5% limit but at the same time I would have occasionally be one of those caught by it if it applied to us (in the ACT), and I don’t think I was doing anything inappropriate! I have sometimes had proxies from various neighbours who I like to think exhibited good reason and sound judgement when they entrusted me with their proxy votes at meetings considering some important issues. Then, at the meeting, I would find out that a few more had nominated me when sending in their proxy forms to the managing agent. I had not ’rounded up’ all of those but having advocating on a few major issues in recent years, I was gratified to learn that quite a few owners trusted my judgement.
In the ACT it is possible to do an ‘absentee vote’ by sending in a form that indicates how you wish to vote on each notified motion without nominating a proxy. Alternatively, you can appoint a proxy and direct the proxy to vote a particular way on some or all motions, or you can appoint a proxy to vote as he or she sees fit. Consequently, on occasion, I have put up my hand twice to vote one way and once to vote the opposite because I had my own vote and two proxies directing me differently on a motion.
In the ACT, perhaps elsewhere, there are safety mechanisms in case a meeting with a ‘reduced quorum’ (<50% of owners) passes a motion unwisely. Notice of the ‘reduced quorum’ decisions must be issued within one week and the decision does not take effect for 28 days. A petition of 50% of owners within 28 days can overturn a reduced quorum decision. IE, if a meeting were poorly attended and one person had rounded up sufficient proxies to put through something that would not be supported by a majority, it is possible to reverse it. The hurdle is high, finding 50% of owners to support the reversal, but something truly awful can be readily reversed before it has been acted on if it is obviously a bad idea. [Might even be a good idea occasionally to wake people up to pay more attention to general meeting agendas!]
Alternatively, a general meeting must be called within 28 days if a petition of 25% of owners (by unit entitlement) requests it stating the matter to be decided, and that second meeting could resolve to overturn the decision of the first meeting.
A further option would be to seek orders from the tribunal. The tribunal has the power to overturn a resolution of a general meeting following a ‘merits review’.
Given these safety mechanisms, I am not too concerned about people lobbying on particular issues and convincing their neighbours to support or oppose some proposal by appointing that person as their proxy. But then I would say that I suppose, as an occasional ‘harvester’. In defence of harvesting I would note that opposition to a worthy proposal from a vocal minority can be very vigorous while support from a majority can be luke-warm unless one puts in the effort to get the vote out. I always prefer and encourage people to attend the meeting first, but offer to take a proxy as an alternative.
Perhaps other states don’t have such robust safety valves. If not, then I would suggest that something along those lines might be a better way to deal with the concerns.
@JimmyT said:
…However, we all cross the line at some point. I frequently quote chunks of the Strata Act which is strictlly speaking copyright but, hey, we paid for it and it is helping to make people more aware…I doubt you quote very large chunks of the Act without proper attribution. I’m no expert but I thought that there was a concept of ‘fair dealing’ or similar which allowed one to quote up to some percentage of a work if it is attributed and part of reasonable comment. Consequently, I would have thought it would be legal and quite appropriate if you were to quote a section of the Act in the context of commentary about why it should be changed or an explanation of what it means.
@SMO said:
@JimmyT said:
There is no limit on the number of proxies any one person can hold, provided they are on the correct form and the proxy holder and providers are entitled to vote at the meeting (ie, their levies are paid up to date and in the bank before the meeting starts)…..I think you might find the following interesting, its on the net so there should be no copyright issues…
The extended quote was interesting. I would not assume that anything on the net is free of copyright! The quoted text appears to have been published on Facebook and I did not find it elsewhere in a search. Normally I think it would be better to summarise the key points and provide a link to the original work.
It might be worth looking for a business that sells recycled tiles in your area so you have a stock of spares. You will always get a few cracked tiles now and then. The tiles used at our set of townhouses are no longer available but they were common a few decades ago. A local business (in Queanbeyan, near Canberra) buys whole roofs of tiles and stockpiles them. These might come from demolished houses or they might come from extended houses where a set of uniform new tiles are put on both the new bit and the original bits of roof.
Anyway, we bought used, matching tiles when we extended our unit and the OC used the same used tiles when adding to our carports (over previously uncovered parking on common property). It looked much better than an instance of an owner who extended their unit with new tiles and it took many years for them to weather enough to blend in.
I am inclined to agree about the lack of problem from old concrete tiles that have lost their glaze. Now that you have replaced the tiles that were actually cracked, can you monitor to check for any continued leaks? If there are no leaks you have fixed the problem for the cost of a few spare tiles.
Among our townhouses, all the tiles are weathered concrete from the 1970s. One unit had a recoating treatment done (in the ACT unit owners in townhouses (class B units) are responsible for maintenance of the unit) and it does not look good having one unit with a shiny new surface.
@Strata Plan of 4 by the beach said:
UPDATE: … & that it seemed to be the fault of their builder whom must not know the restrictions of strata legislation…Nah. Builders are just gung-ho to get on with the job. They probably do have some idea about strata but don’t want to get involved or raise any concern with anyone. They just do the work the way that is quickest and easiest for them, knowing that most of the time people will just live with it or sort out the mess themselves after they have left. To put myself in their shoes for a moment, they must regret it more often than not if they do ask because the job just gets held up while clients don’t know what to do and they are not paid anything for the time. So, they just bulldoze on. I am sure, in many cases, they have sufficient pride in their work to do it the way that they think is most practical, but they do leave their blinkers on so they don’t have to think about strata issues.
If the matter is to be decided at an AGM, don’t rely on the EC to do all the work for you. You are a member of the OC so you can propose a motion and word it how you like and provide whatever background information you like. Keep it brief so the OC does not have to provide many pages in the meeting papers.
It sounds like you can put a motion to the general meeting: ‘That installation of an air-condition be approved on the xxx wall for unit X noting that it would not be visible from the street in line with the bylaw X, that this is the most practical location for unit X, and that it would not provide a precedent for other units to install air-conditioners in locations other than on their balconies because unit X has a unique configuration – a smaller balcony and access to the xxx wall.’
Is it possible the EC members are not actually opposed to the proposal? Perhaps they are just being cautious to avoid making a decision that they worry might be contrary to the spirit of previous decisions on air conditioners? If so, they might be happy to support your motion at the general meeting. Regardless of that, if you can convince other owners that your proposal is fair and reasonable then you can carry proxies of your own or encourage them to attend the meeting.
So many things do come down to judgements about what is ‘reasonable’ and what is not.
We have a few unit owners who seem to think that it is unreasonable for anyone to do anything that causes even the slightest change to the outlook from any window of their unit. Another thinks it is unreasonable to be able to hear ANY noise created by a neighbour.
Most people accept that living in quite close proximity to others will obviously and predictably lead us to be aware of them occasionally, whether it is a little BBQ smoke or some talking or music or whatever. Most accept that people will alter the landscaping in their units or that minor changes to the common property landscaping are necessary occasionally.
I had a very charming neighbour who was very quiet nearly all the time but about three times a year he would have a big party with very loud music. He would include all the neighbours and it would go late into the night. I don’t think anybody minded because he was so nice about it and he did not do it ‘unreasonably’ often.
@JimmyT said:
@daphne diaphanous said:
Dragan forgot the clouds of methane vapour everywhere …Sailing close to the wind, DD?
I refer Flatchatters to this yarn .
Almost makes me wish we had a lift so I would have the opportunity to pass silent comment on a certain few of my neighbours (most are lovely and for them I would refrain from such comment).
I replied to other posts before seeing this one from ‘db’. They seem to be asking about a single issue spread across half a dozen posts. It would probably have been better to put your question with all the details in one post.