Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Ruffs – From my understanding of your issue there has been an initial unauthorised meeting with a solicitor where a plan of action was mapped out for some sort of development. The plan of action, the schedule of ongoing costs, and the initial meeting cost were approved in a single Motion at your scheme’s last General Meeting.
Any owner within a scheme (including a Committee member) may obtain their own quotes at their own cost and submit their own Motions to the OC to be voted on at a General Meeting.
It is important to note that the owner was not authorised by the OC to initially meet with the Solicitor and has therefore acted independently of the OC.
In my opinion the correct procedure would have been for the independent Committee member to have submitted 3 separate Motions for OC approval.
One Motion should have sought OC approval for reimbursement for his own costs for the initial unauthorised meeting with the solicitor (i.e. $1500.00).
The other two Motions should have sought separate approvals for (1) the authorisation of the proposed plan, and (2) the proposed schedule of legal costs that occurred after the initial independent action.
In my opinion the 3 Motions should not have been combined together. The reason being that an owner, should they wish to do so, is not being provided the opportunity to vote differently on each of the 3 elements.
The outcome may end up being the same as the majority of owners may have approved all 3 Motions but at least transparency and separation would have been achieved.
Boronia – In some circumstances you could very well be correct. However, “Miss Muffet’s” committee did not base their opposition to a power point on a lack of circuit capacity. Instead, “Miss Muffet’s” committee based the reason for their opposition to a power point on an unfair assumption that “Miss Muffet” may commit a future unspecified misdeed.
If the only reason that was given by the Committee for refusing your application to install a power point was that you “may indulge in some nefarious use of this power point because it was in a room out of sight!” then in my opinion the Committee’s decision was “unreasonable”.
The Committee should not have denied your application based on a mere presumption that you are the type of person that would commit some type of nefarious act when out of public sight. For the Committee to assume guilt in advance would appear to be grossly unfair.
In previous Tribunal rulings, the Tribunal has held that if the Committee required more information from an individual then the onus is on the Committee to request it.
The Committee could have asked you: (1) Why you needed a power point? (2) What electrical appliances you intended to use? This could be relevant if common property insurance would be impacted. (3) For how long you intended to use the appliances? This is relevant if the power to be used is common property power, and would therefore burden the owner’s corporation electricity costs. (4) What financial contribution you intended to make to compensate for any common property power use?
If you believe that the owners corporation acted unreasonably in withholding its consent, you may:
(a) lodge a Fair Trading mediation application with the owners corporation and, if this is unsuccessful or has been refused by the owners corporation;
(b) lodge a strata Adjudication Application.
madmother – The unit entitlement of 1:1 indicates that the developer considered that:
(1) the value of the Lots was relatively equal at the time that the strata plan was registered (not the current value) , and/or
(2) 2 Lots scheme’s Lot entitlements should generally be kept equal to prevent one Lot effectively gaining greater control than the other Lot.
Just because your neighbour has a larger internal space than you do it does not follow that your neighbour should have a greater share of the common property. In fact, in my opinion the reverse is true.
You could argue that your neighbour should actually be granted less exclusive yard space than you to offset your different sized internal spaces i.e. the larger internal space is offset by a smaller external space to make the Lots more equal in value.
Unit entitlements reflect the burden placed on each owner to provide funding for the repair and maintenance of the common property areas such as the roof, exterior walls etc. Those parts of the building that are not common property do not create burdens on other Lot owners. Each owner is generally responsible for their own internal maintenance, regardless of the respective sizes.
A larger internal space usually equates to a larger common property roof area over your neighbour’s Lot which creates an unequal maintenance burden on you should the roof ever need replacing. Depending on the WA Act, the exterior walls, even those contained within the proposed exclusive use areas could also be regarded as common property. A larger internal area usually equates to a larger external common property wall area.
For your neighbour to add a larger external space to an already larger internal space could possibly create an “unreasonable” imbalance to the 1:1 unit entitlement. This would be in favour of your neighbour and would be to your detriment.
At the very least your external spaces should be equal, but there is an argument that you could mount that your external space should be greater to compensate for the unequal internal spaces.
You may need to speak to a property valuer to work out the best formula for creating equal value within your scheme, taking into account both the internal spaces and the proposed external spaces of both Lots.
NB: Please be aware that the Tribunal is probably unlikely to change the entitlement as the Tribunal would be loathe to give your neighbour a greater voting power and greater control than you in your 2 Lot scheme.
I agree with Austman. Responsibility for a hand rail will generally fall on whom ever owns the stairs. Are the stairs common property? Or are they located within a Lot boundary?
If there is no hand rail on the common property stairs between the ground floor and the first floor then I would think that it would be essential for your OC to provide one.
There is no legal requirement for a handrail for a height of less than 1 m, however other safety concerns such as the number of elderly or young occupants, visibility, and ‘trips and slips’ may increase the need for a railing. The height between the ground floor and the first floor would obviously be more than 1 m.
“To prevent people from falling, a continuous balustrade or barrier must be provided alongside any stairway or ramp, any floor, corridor, hallway, balcony, verandah, mezzanine or path of access to a building if it is not bounded by a wall or any level more than 1 m above adjoining floor or finished ground level.”
More info here: https://www.abis.com.au/balustrades-handrails-stairs
The legislation mandates that all windows have a window safety device fitted in the following situations:
1. A window within a child’s reach which is less than 1.7 m above the floor, and
2. the floor is more than 2 m above the outside ground.
Those are the rules.
No windows are exempt if they fall within either of the two situations listed above.
To add to scotlandx’s comment ….. if the by-laws were changed to now exclude pets the by-law would not be retrospective.
Therefore, if you already had a pet you would be permitted to keep the pet until the pet died. You would not be permitted to acquire another pet.
The by-law does not become enforceable until it has been correctly Passed at a general meeting AND has been Registered within the required time period.
If the by-laws have not yet changed and you want to acquire a pet then if I was you I would seek to acquire a pet as soon as possible. The OC cannot refuse you permission to keep a pet until the by-law has been Passed AND has been Registered. It would be unreasonable for the OC to refuse you permission to keep a pet based on a mere possibility that a by-law will be Passed and will be Registered.
I would suggest engaging a lawyer, as JT suggests.
Seiwa is an older case (2006) and its reasonings, as they pertain to damages for loss of rent etc, appear not to have been followed for several years.
See below for further explanations:
Your plan seems OK.
I suggest that you bring in an a/c installer and get them to take a look at what remedies are available to properly drain the unit, and after the assessment I would ask that the a/c professional writes a report including photographs etc. If you end up taking this to NCAT then you will need to also submit this professional report.
Is the OC OK with the location of the exterior unit? Is it located on a common property wall or within the owner’s own Lot? Did the pipe work need to go through a common property wall, or a window? Is the issue only with the drainage? What do your by-laws say about a/c units? Is the a/c in breach of the ‘appearance of a Lot’ by-laws?
Your OC’s future actions depend on the answers to the questions in the above paragraph.
Below is an article on the correct drainage requirements for an a/c. Although it is a Victorian article the plumbing requirements should apply Australia wide:
NB: I have had a blocked a/c drainage pipe which was caused by mud dauber wasps building a mud nest in the outlet. It was an easy fix with a metal skewer used to dig out the wasp and some fly wire taped to the end of the pipe to keep the wasps out!! Perhaps the new owner’s a/c leaking problems may also have an easy fix.
The offensive odour is obviously causing a nuisance. The OC is not permitted to create a nuisance.
You have a couple of options: (1) write to the OC and demand that they cease this nuisance and if they don’t then see here: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Tenants_and_home_owners/Strata_schemes/Resolving_disputes_in_a_strata_scheme/Strata_and_community_disputes.page
and/or (2) contact your local council, and/or (3) contact the EPA Environment Line 131 555.
The Act (Dictionary) defines ‘offensive odour’ as an odour that, due to its strength, nature, duration, character, quality, time of emission or some other circumstance,
- is harmful or likely to be harmful to a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted
- interferes or is likely to interfere unreasonably with the comfort or rest of a person who is outside the premises from which it is emitted, or
- is prescribed by the regulations.
peaceandquiet – You may need to adopt a separate NO PARTY by-law, or at least include additional conditions in one of your other by-laws.
Try to avoid subjective and vague language in your By-law such as “balconies and courtyards are to be used with consideration for other residents”. These types of words are relatively meaningless.
Examples of stricter conditions are:
“XXXXXXXXX has a zero tolerance policy on parties being held in the apartments and common areas between the hours of 9 p.m. and 11 a.m..
A party being defined as:
– Any situation where the maximum number of occupants allowed per apartment is exceeded.– Any situation where the noise level from the apartment is deemed too high thereby disturbing other occupants.
– Any situation whereby excessive traffic to/from the apartment is identified.
– Any situation where it is deemed that intoxication is occurring.
– Any situation where it is identified that excessive alcohol is present.”To address your current dilemma I would request that a By Law infringement Notice be proceeded with against the Tenants as per the procedure outlined in the Act. Tenants can be evicted if they do not abide by the by-laws. A By-law infringement Notice is the first step in achieving this outcome.
Check your SM Contract. This fee may have been agreed to when the Contract was signed.
Sometimes small line items such as the email ‘fee’ are not scrutinised well enough by the OC before signing.
If the fee is part of the signed and agreed Contract between the OC and the SM then there is probably not much that you can do about until the Contract expires.
The email ‘fee’ does appear to be excessive. I would not renew this SM contract if this email ‘fee’ was included.
If I was you I would have a plumber come and look at it and assess the seriousness of the problem. I would then get the plumber to write a short report which you would submit to the SM and the committee ASAP.
SMs and committees usually react more quickly if a specialist rather than an owner raises a concern.
If it is a raw sewage issue then that would concern me greatly – as it clearly does you!
See this document “Where can I find the by-laws” from the NSW Land Registry Services:
https://www.nswlrs.com.au/about_nswlrs/strata_scheme_questions/strata_scheme_laws
The plans and/or registered by-laws can be purchased via a listed approved information broker.
The tiles do not form part of the slab. The slab is poured during the building’s construction and is structural. The tiles do not form part of the structural integrity of the building. The tiles sit atop the slab.
Replacing kitchen and hall tiles with timber would be deemed to be a ‘minor renovation’ under the Act and should have already been approved by ordinary resolution of the OC. Check your general meeting Minutes to find out whether approval has been granted. This area does not require water proofing.
Removing the tiles by the method that you have described is normal procedure.