Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
To add to JT’s reply and, depending upon the nature of the Tenancy, the following information regarding anti-social tenants may apply:
https://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/living-in-public-housing/antisocial-behaviour
One of the initial steps would be to find out whether FACS has the Head Lease. If FACS have the head lease then FACS may be responsible for maintenance issues:
https://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/living-in-public-housing/maintenance-and-home-alterations
Thanks SH.
This info will be very useful as we all move forward with this ‘new’ option in our individual ‘strata-lands’ .
Kray – I would think that the courtyard turf (be it synthetic or real) would be an owner and/or a builder responsibility. If the turf is within an Exclusive Use courtyard it is not the Owners Corporation’s responsibility. It is the responsibility of the person benefiting from having the exclusive use.
If the apartment is still within the builder warranty period then the Lot Owner would be wise to keep pursuing the builder for a solution. Once the warranty period expires the problem will be the responsibility of the Lot Owner.
I can understand the reasoning behind Gus’s comment however the biggest distraction in supervision of children is the mobile phone. These are not banned in pool areas.
There are certain structures that are not permissible within a pool area. However, a movable table and chairs are not structures. Structures are permanent and fixed in place.
Chairs and tables are furniture – they are not structures.
A person supervising children may wish to sit at table and chair rather than on a sun lounge. There are no restrictions on where or how people are permitted to sit. Restrictions such as this would probably be a step too far.
“The following structures are not allowed in the enclosed pool area and are to be located and accessed outside the swimming pool enclosure:
Any residential building,
Any WC, shower room, change room, laundry or clothes line,
Any structure with cooking and food storage facilities,
Enclosed gazebos, cabanas and pool houses,
Boat sheds and garages and sheds not associated with the
swimming pool.”The Swimming Pool Act does not ban furniture within a pool area. All of the Council Fact Sheets that I have seen do not ban furniture within a pool area.
According to one local council, the purpose of taking these measures reduces the frequency of entering/ leaving the pool.
Did your pool area contain seating prior to the ‘magical’ appearance of the table and chairs?
As SH has mentioned it is a good idea to have seating in the pool area as it encourages adult supervision of children in the pool area.
Why don’t you wait and see if problems arise? Sometimes we anticipate a problem that never (or rarely) actually eventuates.
A prudent OC should already have By-laws in place for pool usage. If not then I suggest that a By-law be created to deal with usage of the pool area for eating and drinking, and any possible disturbances?
A big ‘no no’ in any pool areas in glassware. I would definitely suggest that no glass ware be permitted within the pool boundary fence e.g. glass bottles, wine glasses, drinking glasses etc. Also, provide a bin adjacent to the table for food scraps and paper napkins etc. No radio, CD, music etc in the pool area could also be a good idea if the pool is located close to residential premises.
Perhaps the Committee approved the pool furniture and forgot to include it in the Minutes? This type of installation would hardly warrant all individual owners having a vote at a general meeting.
Car parking spaces that are adjacent to walls, fences, and obstructions should be made 0.3m wider than the standard width to account for car door opening.
If your garage spaces have been designed with no additional allocation for obstructions then no obstructions should be permitted.
Below is an article regarding design considerations for building developments
https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/119632/DCP11_Section4.pdf
I totally agree JT.
We are caught not only between the politics – but also between the legislation.
The horrendous inconsistency between the various Acts as to the meaning of “residential property” just adds to the confusion.
Conveyancing law, tax law, GST law, strata law, tenancy law, etc all have a different definition of “residential property”. These laws generally make no reference to the term of occupation.
Unless I am wrong, the only place where you see any reference to the term of occupation appears to be in some local council zoning laws.
For various reasons these are either not enforced or are inconsistently enforced. This begs the questions
(1) “Why have a zoning code if it is not enforced?” and
(2) “Are Councils afraid that they have created a zoning code that can be easily challenged and overturned if it was to be enforced?”
An interesting legal test will arise when a decision needs to be made as to which law must yield to another law.
This needs to be sorted out ASAP.
The building design that you are describing does not appear to have much density of material or insulation between the noisy pipe and the complainant. Heavy materials like concrete tend to be the best materials for sound insulation.
Interior walls that have layers of plasterboard with sound control material in the cavity can be very effective in reducing sound.
Has anyone with a similarly located Lot i.e. one that abuts the pipe work, complained about this in the past? Perhaps it is a new problem? The lower Lots in a building would probably have greater issues than higher Lots.
If I was you I would first seek the advice of a plumber.
Then …. If there is not a plumbing problem perhaps your Committee can (1) Suggest that the complainant move their bed to another wall if possible; or (2) Have the Committee discuss with the complainant the feasibility and acceptability of the installation of an extra sound barrier on the inside of the common property wall. Perhaps both the OC and the complainant can share the cost?
NCAT decisions pertaining to Strata Schemes are often searched for in the pre purchase due diligence. If nothing is done about this issue and it ends up becoming rancorous through NCAT it may draw unfavourable attention to this “defect” and dissuade potential purchasers from buying in your building. Is this something that your OC would be prepared to accept?
The 4 fundamental questions are: (1) what is the purpose of the audio recording of the Meeting; and (2) who is doing the recording; and (3) is there knowledge that the Meeting is being recorded; and (4) has there been OC consent to the audio recording of the Meeting.
I would think that if the OC agrees to the recording of the Meeting by a designated person for the purposes of accurate Minute taking and that the recording is destroyed after the Minutes have been recorded in writing then that should be OK. This decision should be placed in a By-law for all Owners and all potential Owners to be aware of.
It is reasonable to place a ban in the By-law on any other unauthorized audio recording of Meetings.
Everyone who attends the Meeting would have knowledge that the Meeting was being recorded.
A person buys into the Strata Scheme with an understanding that there are By-laws for the scheme. The purchase of a Lot within that scheme is an implied consent to the By-laws of that scheme.
Common property plumbing is an OC responsibility to repair and maintain.
If the building is old then plumbing issues can arise over time. Perhaps that is the reason for the plumbing noise. Materials used in older buildings may be inferior to newer materials.
I would advise at least having a plumbing inspection. If the pipes are accessible they can be acoustically wrapped with pipe wrap.
I too have an issue with noisy common property property plumbing pipe works (possibly the sewer line) that runs adjacent to my Lot therefore I empathize with the complainant. The noise is quite disturbing to me.
It is common in Qld, where I live, to have Motions within Minutes.
Well conducted Committee Meetings, and well recorded Minutes, should be mainly comprised of discussions (which are briefly summarized in the Minutes) and resolutions (which are decisions that have been made as a result of these discussions).
What the Committee discusses, and decides, should be a matter of community record – even if the subject is controversial. This is known as the ‘deliberative process’ i.e. how decisions were arrived at.
For clarity the resolutions of the discussions should be in the form of Motions which are then voted on by Committee members. Numbers For and Against should be recorded and Minuted as being Resolved Or Carried if the majority is For the Motion.
If an issue cannot be resolved it should be Minuted that it is to be held over until the next Meeting.
However, regardless of the form that the Committee Minutes are in if a decision has been made by the Committee then it is a Resolution because it is a decision that has been resolved.
The Lot Owners have a legal right under the Act to know what these Resolutions are.
If your Committee is not providing your Lot Owners with an Agenda and the proper Notice of the Meetings, and are not providing the proper Minutes of the Meeting within 7 days after the Meeting then they are in breach of the Act.
See below for an article on how Strata Managers record the Minutes:
https://www.lookupstrata.com.au/body-corporate-meeting-minutes/
Ziggy – Section 13(f) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 provides that the Strata Manager can be delegated functions including of ‘conduct of meetings of the Owners Corporation’.
Strata Management Agency Agreements often include a clause providing the Strata Manager with the delegation on behalf of the Owners Corporation to act as Chairperson of meetings. When the Agreement is approved by the OC then there is an agreement by the OC to this clause.
Effective management of the Meeting and the making of sound decisions on behalf of the OC should be the ultimate goal of any Committee.
It could be argued that a Strata Manager is more likely to be clinical, and more knowledgeable about the Act, when performing the role of Chairperson. The SM is also probably less likely than the Chairperson to be impacted by the ‘politics’ of the scheme.
The best option is always to have the Chairperson chair the Meeting as this is included as being one of the functions of the Chairperson under Section 42 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 but if the Chairperson is ineffective then the SM may be able to fulfill the role of Chair of a meeting if they have been delegated to do so.
To assist the OC the SM can be delegated any or all of the functions of the EC. This delegation can occur either by the OC, or by a Tribunal decision. See Sections 11, 12, and 13 of SSMA 2015.
There are two issues that arise from your request for advice: (1) the power (or powerlessness) of House Rules, and (2) inconsistencies with other Acts.
House Rules are not by-laws. The Act is silent on House Rules. Only By-laws are enforceable. However, By-laws can only be enforced and be enforceable if they are legal.
This leads on to the second issue of inconsistencies with other Acts.
The RTA has a requirement that each Tenant is to be provided with a key. Even if the OC strengthened their ‘one key per Lot’ position by creating a By-law then this By-law would be unenforceable because it is inconsistent with the RTA.
The Section of the RTA that you are referring to states that:
A landlord or landlord’s agent must give to each tenant named in the
residential tenancy agreement a copy of the key or any other opening
device or information required to open a lock or security device for the
residential premises or common property to which the tenant is entitled
to have access.SSMA 2015 Section 136 states:
Matters by-laws can provide for
(1) By-laws may be made in relation to the management, administration, control, use or enjoyment of the lots or the common property and lots of a strata scheme.
(2) A by-law has no force or effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with this or any other Act or law.Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
The reason for making the Lot Owners aware of both the proposed Motions and the Resolved Motions made by the Committee is to allow the Lot Owners to exercise their right to object to these Motions.
If enough Lot Owners object to the proposed Motions of a Committee Meeting, whether this is to be a formal Committee Meeting or a vote outside of a Committee Meeting then the Motion will have no effect. To put the brakes on a proposed Committee decision 1/3 of the total numbers of Lot Owners can object by way of writing to the Secretary prior to the Motion being Resolved.
Similarly, Lot Owners can exercise their right to put the brakes on Committee decisions after the Committee have Resolved the Motion.
That is why it is very important that a copy of the Minutes, including all of the Resolved Motions, must be provided to all Lot Owners within 7 days. NB: For this reason it is wise for a Committee not to take action on any Resolved Motion within that 7 day time period.
This process allows Lot Owners to exercise their right to object to the Committee Motion(s) by calling a General Meeting to overturn it. A lot owner, or owners, who hold jointly at least 1/4 of the unit entitlements, may request a meeting to be held at any time.
The Committee is elected to represent the Owners Corporation. If the Committee make decisions which do not reflect the wishes of the Owners Corporation then there are mechanisms within the Act for the Owners Corporation to overturn the Committee’s decisions.
The reference from the Office of Fair Trading is below. For a fuller understanding of the issue it is best to read the information in total rather than only reading the isolated headings.
NB: The giving of Notice and the giving of Minutes varies slightly with large schemes i.e. those containing over 100 Lots.
Re the removal of a Committee member from their position as an office bearer to a position as an ordinary member.
Your assessment is correct.
A resolution can be revoked in the same manner in which it was passed. This means a committee can change their mind at committee meetings or by a vote outside committee.
If the Committee voted a person into an Executive position then the Committee can vote to remove them and install another person in that role. See Section 45(1)(c) from your extract from SSMA 2015 above.
As you are probably aware, a Committee cannot vote to remove a member from the Committee all together though. Only the OC can do that. A general meeting resolution can only be revoked at a general meeting by the same type of resolution.