Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@tubs said:
Can rental tenants in units sub-let their car port spaces as storage? I’m talking about and old car with a bit of cover over it, no engine and on blocks? Looks shocking!!!I had an old car up on blocks for the best part of a year with no engine in a sub-let space. It was only a carpark, not the most glamorous part of the site. My neighbours were mainly interested in the progress of my conversion of the car to electric drive; none were concerned about the appearance as far as I was aware. 6 years later the car is going fine on 100% greenpower electricity and parked in my own space next to a power point!
Not sure in Victoria. In the ACT (and you might have something similar to look for) the EC can approve ‘minor uses’ of common property if they are ‘unlikely to unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property’. Examples in the Act include air conditioners and awnings. If the air conditioner is in an unobtrusive location, neither unsightly nor blocking any access, then the EC (in the ACT, perhaps in Vic also) could resolve to give approval. Non-minor uses of common property requires a ‘special privilege’ to be granted to the unit owner at a general meeting. Again, you might have something similar.
The by-law seems excessively specific. I think it is reasonable and more common to have residents responsible for damage caused by moving but to leave it up to the resident to decide how to move.
@PeterC said:
We have $1,000,000 for ‘office bearer’s liability’ and $20,000,000 for ‘legal liability’ (IE 3rd party liability). I think those amounts are pretty standard though we are just over 100 units.By chance this came up at our AGM a couple of days ago. Our managing agent noticed the $1,000,000 and said that for our large OC $10,000,000 might be more appropriate. The AGM resolved that the EC could adjust the insurance level up on advice from the insurer about usual practice. We have asked and have yet to hear back.
Are the letterboxes part of or on the common property? If so, an argument could be made that it is an OC responsibility. However, it is not a good look for an EC member to ask for something they could just fix themselves for a trivial amount. If multiple letter boxes need repairs and they are common property the best way to deal with it would be to fix them all, or none.
We have $1,000,000 for ‘office bearer’s liability’ and $20,000,000 for ‘legal liability’ (IE 3rd party liability). I think those amounts are pretty standard though we are just over 100 units.
The EC is entitled to ask for the unit roll. Are there more than you and the two others on the EC? If so, I suggest you sound out the others for the following course of action: Say to the rest of the EC: ‘Managing the OC is a big job and a big responsibility. There may be advantages in doing that but there may be disadvantages as well. What if we have a willing and competent EC now but we might not in a few years? Would the owners more generally think it is in their interests to leave it to a few owners? They might save some money, an interested EC might do a better job but then a disinterested manager might do a better job, especially since the EC can direct the manager to do things in any case. Owners might regard the manager as worth the fee for some belt and braces protection in case some future EC was not as good as the current one. I propose that we should write to owners to let them know that this is a matter the EC is thinking about and we would be interested to gauge owner sentiment on the topic before developing the idea further. I think we could spell out in general terms in the letter what we think the advantages and disadvantages might be.’ Depending on your relationship with the strata manager, the EC could simply direct the manager to mail your letter to all owners. The manager is obliged to act on the instruction if it is a resolution of an EC meeting. Of course that would reveal to the manager that you are thinking about dumping him/her. You could say ‘That might cause him/her to pull up their socks which might be a good thing if we think there is a reasonable case for suggesting we are not getting good service. This might in itself justify this course of action. By the time of a later general meeting we might be able to report that we have decided to keep going it alone on our agenda but on the back burner for now because the manager seems to have been so much more attentive lately.’
What about trying that with your EC?
Usually there would be a bylaw about a lot owner not doing anything that unreasonably interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property (that is ACT wording but probably similar elsewhere). That can cover a lot of things. It could be argued that storage of unsightly mess in a lot owners parking space is interfering with my reasonable expectation that I could use the common property (in this case the shared part of the parking area) without being visually assaulted by ugly mess.
I would use this and any more specific bylaw and concern for fire risk and anything else. List them all. Ask people nicely first, then more firmly, then go to the tribunal. Be utterly fair. Give the same letter to all offenders on the same terms.
Could a manager be appointed with the additional function (which would cost a bit extra) of sorting out what action can be taken against the previous agent and then doing that? Why is you current manager not providing advice on options to recover money embezzled by the previous agent? Perhaps they would if asked the right questions.
Maybe in NSW there is some prohibition on letting other use your parking space. Seems odd to me. As it happens I leased a parking space from a neighbour for a year some time ago to accommodate a car I was converting to electric drive. At the moment I have a car in another space that a neighbour is not using and they are happy to let me use it. Lots of people have amicable arrangements with neighbours where one has a spare space and the other has a trailer or extra car to accommodate. I can’t see why the EC would have a problem with that.
It would seem to me that if the owner of the unit (IE you) does not have a problem with the ‘vehicle’ in your allocated parking space, why would anyone else be concerned.
Just to be certain that this sort of thing was covered, when we allocate a parking space on common property as a special privilege for exclusive use to a particular unit (ACT jargon, might be different elsewhere), we have a clause that the unit owner is free to allow other residents or visitors to use the parking space if they care to do so.
@JimmyT said:
I am reliably informed that the “pornographers” concerned are BunningsSorry, I should have been more specific. I meant, I wonder where I could get one of those evil tribal statues that could curse certain of my neighbours?
NB. Most of my neighbours are perfectly reasonable, nice people so I would want it to be appropriately directional.
Where can I get one of those statues?
Sounds like they are not organised enough to take any action!
Alternatively, you could seek orders from the Tribunal to give effect to your sensible proposal on the grounds that the general meeting failed to consider it reasonably.
The roof is probably common property so you would need approval. I assume you are in NSW. In the ACT there is a provision for the EC to approve ‘minor’ uses of the common property but an unopposed resolution is required for the alternative which is a ‘special privilege’. NSW is almost certainly different.