Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If the bikes were chained to the rail of a stair well (for example) in a way that could obstruct access it would seem the complaint is reasonable and the by-law would apply. If the bikes are in an unobtrusive location, not preventing anybody from using the clothes line or doing anything else people do in that bit of the common property, I can’t see that this by-law applies.
I would suggest a motion to install a fence in the coming year out of the existing grounds maintenance budget if that is feasible. You might be surprised how many people would resist having any increase in the budget for money spent on common property facitilies that they don’t use themselves. They can’t see past their wallets to see that a suite of facilities makes the place nicer to live in, provides more opportunities for neighbours to meet and perhaps become friends. They can’t even see that such things increase the value of their units even if they are stay indoors curmudgeons themselves.
We have various facilities, all of which are only used by a minority but the minorities are different. Some use the tennis court but not the BBQ, some use the BBQ but not the playground. I used to use the playground when my kids were younger but not now. Perhaps I will use it later if I have grandkids. Some use our open spaces to walk or kick a ball, many do not. Once something is in place people don’t seem to object but it is a hurdle to get over that only a minority expect to see a benefit from any particular change and even they will be luke-warm in their support:
“ We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience. Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.”
Niccolò Machiavelli
The PrinceSo, if you can make it so that this particular upgrade is out of the general grounds budget without any increase you might have more success.
What if it were couched in broader terms? Perhaps a proposal for ‘sprucing up’ this particular bit of the grounds with a seat, some more interesting plantings around an open area and the fence that would make it safer for families to use. Perhaps it could be useful to have some ambiguity about what is maintenance vs. additions to the common property. Surely it is maintenance even if a bit of grass is replaced with some bushes.
- Chemical Free Cleaning – Micro-fiber & Electrolysed water technology
All very good. Great to have green cleaning but I do wonder about this item. Electrolysed water is an explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen! Perhaps that is not what they mean?
@JimmyT said:
…waiting till the next AGM before you issue the minutes of the previous one is ridiculous but, sadly, commonplace…i’m surprised by that comment. In the ACT the Act requires general meeting minutes to be issued within 7 days. This is important because there is a provision to overturn decisions of ‘reduced quorum’ meetings within 28 days if more than 50% of owners petition to do so. IE a protection exists to reverse a poor decision of a poorly attended general meeting.
@newbie468 said:
I recently bought into a 15 unit block and have found out that when the block was built, 3 “car spaces” were actually too small to fit cars in them. So the owners re-allocated the undercover spaces, giving the 3 visitors spaces to these units and shuffling the other spaces around, painting the new unit numbers on the walls of the garage. The title was never changed to reflect this.The new car space I have been “allocated” is quite alot smaller and harder to access than the one listed on my title. I have mentioned to the EC and the strata manager that I would like to have access to my space as listed on the title, and would like to have the visitors spaces reverted as they should be.
The member of the EC is one of those units who would effectively lose a car space if this was to go ahead, and is reluctant to help. The strata manager is currently not sympathetic and is taking a very long time to reply to my emails inquiring about this. I believe other new owners have raised the issue, but have been discouraged by the lack of action by the EC and Strata manager. Strata have mentioned changing the title to reflect the current status – at the cost of all of the owners.
What are my rights here? I have waited 5 months for something to happen, and am not having any results. What do I do from here?
What is on the title is the definitive word on this as others have said. However, it sounds like a mistake was made at the start with some spaces unusable. Perhaps the reasonable thing to do is to look at parking comprehensively and work out what would be the most practical arrangement now that would give everyone a workable space. IE ask yourselves what would be fair and equitable and practical to do now if the slate were wiped clean. That could then be put as a proposal to formalise and regularise.
Something to look at would be the Australian Standards on parking. We have some people who think their 3m wide spaces are tight yet the standard can allow as little as 2.4m and these same people cope in public parking elsewhere with this spacing. Minimum spacing allowed in the Standards varies with turning space (aisle) width and whether there is door opening space that can be ‘borrowed’ or a solid impediments such as a wall.
A really good solution will require work and good will!
In the ACT the Act requires general meeting minutes to be mailed out within a week. Where there was a ‘reduced quorum’ there are provisions to overturn decisions within 28 days by a sufficient petition. That could not happen if the minutes were not distributed promptly. I would be surprised if NSW did not have some similar provisions. Quoting the relevant section of the Act might get more movement from the strata manager.
@JimmyT said:
And in NSW the Act says pretty much the same thing but adds that in any conflict between decisions of the EC and those of the Owners Corporation, the Owners Corp prevails.Same in ACT. The EC acts as directed by resolutions of general meetings or, in the absence of direction, as it sees fit. Since the approved budget is a direction of a general meeting there is considerable restraint on the EC. However, the EC has some scope, indeed responsibility, to take action and spend money when urgent.
In the ACT: “The executive committee exercises the functions of the owners corporation and is responsible for its day-to-day operation.”
‘Smart’ meters can mean a variety of things. It can be what is more correctly an ‘interval’ or ‘Time of Use’ meter, which is not particularly smart. This sort records consumption in peak, shoulder and off-peak bands and the customer is charged a different rate for the electricity recorded on each of those registers.
I have such a ToU meter and it saves me about $40/quarter. I can fill the dishwasher, set it to delay running till after 10PM so it costs only half as much to run. Similarly, I have a timer on the electric boost to my solar hot water so that most of the time, if it needs a boost, it will only happen on off peak rates in a few hours before dawn. I have recently arranged for our OC’s path and parking area lighting to be on a ToU meter. This means we will be charged more for a few hours in the evening but much less for most of the rest of the night while the lights are on. Overall we will have a modest on-going saving.
Smarter meters of various sorts can send a wireless signal into the house to a display that shows the present rate of consumption and cost and gives the consumer information to enable them to defer significant loads till it is cheaper. Even smarter meters can regulate smart devices such as electric vehicle chargers to turn on when the rates are cheaper and turn of when they are more expensive. With such controls could go electricity rates that are communicated to the meter and varied continuously to inversely reflect demand rather than in crude peak/shoulder/offpeak bands.
At the moment the cost of electricity supply varies by orders of magnitude through the day and through the year but the consumer has no way to respond to that when they are charged a flat rate. If you don’t have air conditioning you are subsidising those who do and run it at the flat rate price when demand and the cost of supply is very high. Smart meters of various sorts are a way to avoid the cost of having generating capacity sitting idle to cope with the few hours a year of very high demand.
It is the way of the future but there are some who rage against Smart meters on the internet for generally spurious reasons.
@Whale said:
…and shouldn’t that solution be something initiated by the Executive Committee on behalf of all Proprietors and not an expedient solution to appease one Proprietor…Absolutely. The EC should make it clear that the one proprietor did not have the right to annex common property. The EC could put it to a vote of the OC to choose either to take advantage of the situation to have a community garden partially established at no cost or effort them or to require the one proprietor to reinstate the previous garden style. This would make it very clear to owners generally that annexing common property is not tolerated.
It is a problem when someone who is generally a pain suggests something that is not completely unreasonable!
Depending on what is in your By-Laws now, perhaps the way for the EC to deal with this is to propose a By-Law that would be a reasonable compromise on pets. If it gets the necessary support you will have more teeth to deal with complaints that contravene the By-Law. On the other hand if the majority of owners don’t support the proposal then you can shrug your shoulders when you get complaints and say you tried but can only act to reflect the resolutions of general meetings and on this one there was not the support.
By reasonable By-laws, I’d suggest such things as:
-members much seek approval for pets but approval will not be unreasonably refused (that is something like the ACT Unit Titles Act wording).
-Dogs must be on leash if on common property (perhaps you could designate an off leash area if that would be practical in your setting)
-Faeces must be removed by pet owners.
-Cats must not be allowed to roam but outdoor cat runs may be approved within unit areas.
Various lawyers have off the shelf pet by-laws you can purchase.
I would second the community garden idea. They are all the rage. Anywhere there is a community garden there is a waiting list to get in. It would be a win-win compromise for all. The principle that this is common property would be upheld. Unilateral annexing of common property would not be rewarded by giving it away but nor would there be the unedifying sight of ripping out a productive garden and reinstating a decorative garden that perhaps no-one really benefits from or uses.
I think the next thing to do is to draft a bylaw for use of the community garden. I would suggest the EC allocates plots on a year by year basis to any interested resident. You have to give up your plot if it is not being used or not kept tidy. If demand is high the plots will be subdivided so all units have an opportunity to use part of the garden. Note that some might want only a little corner for a few tomatoes while others might want to grow a great variety and quantity. Have some process for fair and flexible allocation.
You might want to use some OC funds to develop it further with certain one-off costs, say paving between rows, fencing around the whole area, or some screening planting from more formal garden areas. That would be justified as improving a community facility. On the other hand manure/compost/mulch for one’s assigned plot would be at your own cost. Depending on your situation you might prefer a shared compost area that could take kitchen scraps or you might require people to prepare compost within their own unit areas.
I suggest you use this as an opportunity! Tell the person who did this that it was not really done the right way, the OC really cannot tolerate a land grab, but, now that it is done, this person and the OC could make something of benefit to all out of it.
Back in 1976 our OC adopted the following at its first general meeting. The language is a bit dated now but I think it is essentially sound. Community gardens went out of fashion and our early one was disbanded. Recently we tried to reinstate it and it met with significant opposition and did not get up.
“7. The Corporation may set aside a portion or portions of the common land for gardening purposes and permit in writing members to use that land or parts thereof to grow plants or keep animals or birds thereon SUBJECT TO any conditions which the Corporation may impose.
8. (1) Every member who obtains the use of any garden area under the preceding Article:
(a) shall not use the same EXCEPT as a garden and for the purpose of growing plants or keeping animals or birds and shall not grow or keep animals or birds or permit to remain on the garden allotment, EXCEPT with the written permission of the Corporation, any plant or animal or bird EXCEPT a plant or animal or bird grown for food or other domestic purposes PROVIDED THAT if the Corporation considers that a plant or animal or bird whether grown or kept for food or other purpose is noxious or causing a nuisance may require the member to remove the same and the member shall forthwith comply; and
(b) shall at all times keep such garden allotment well cultivated and tended.
(2) If the member shall be guilty of a breach of any conditions subject to which a member has been granted a garden allotment or of any of the conditions in the preceding subsection the Corporation shall without prejudice to my other rights or remedies of any kind, be it liberty by its servants, agents or workmen to enter into the garden allotment and to remove and/or destroy the animal or bird or plant planted or remaining in the garden allotment in contravention of such condition and to remove any fertilizer, herbicide or insecticide or other chemical prohibited in such conditions and/or to apply any substance to the allotment on any part thereof to any plant growing thereon to neutralize or counteract the effect of my such fertilizer, insecticide, herbicide or chemical.
(3) Without limiting the generality of this article, the Corporation may grant garden allotments subject to conditions relating to access by other members, use of water and drainage and fees chargeable for use of garden allotments.”
A regular problem we have is that it can be hard to find a competent tradesperson to do work that is more complex than a handyman job but too small for most builders to be interested in (eg. general refurbishments to carports or installing a 60m exposed aggregate footpath, or rebuilding retaining walls that were bowing and in danger of collapse due to a lack of proper subsoil drainage). This means it can take a while to get quotes organised. Most quotes have a standard 1 month period for which it is valid printed on the form but then we usually are assured that the quote will be good for longer than that. We have not had problems except where various thing dragged a job out for a year and some of the required work changed.
@Flewflew said:
…While we wait for a solution, we have asked the EC/Strata Manager whether we can temporarily use the communal garage which is empty. We want to provide a legal letter stating the terms of use, to enable us to proceed….In the ACT (and I would guess NSW has something similar), the EC can approve a special privilege for ‘minor’ use of common property so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the common property by others. I would have thought the EC could resolve to allow you to use a garage that is temporarily not being used by other owners. They could include conditions such as vacating as soon as the garage is ready to be used by other owners, not impeding the required repairs or whatever else might be necessary to ensure your proposed use does not interfere with anything else etc.