Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
An asbestos containing fire door is still a fire door, and the presence of asbestos does not fault a fire door during the annual fire safety inspection. Your building should have an “asbestos register” which lists all the asbestos in the building, and older asbestos doors should be listed there. Most buildings of the same era as yours will have asbestos in them (often in the electrical switchboard), and in the fire doors located on Units and on fire stairs.
You are probably mistaken that the other Unit doors were replaced because they contained asbestos. It would have been for another reason, such as their general poor state, missing tags, gaps around the sides being too big, etc. The current replacement you are getting is probably the Owners Corporation doing a favour to you, so you should not be too quick to criticise them!
Asbestos containing fire doors, of which there are very many still in use, are safe, as long as they serve their original purpose, and the asbestos stays safely locked inside them. Don’t penetrate them, by making any holes in them, which will defect a fire door anyway, and ensure they are kept in good conditions. Fire safety inspections will not defect an asbestos containing door, just because they contain asbestos. If you are worried about the asbestos, ask the strata committee to consider an upgrade to a modern (non-asbestos) door, and when the fire safety company comes to inspect it, tell them the door probably has asbestos inside (it’s hard to know for sure), and that you are unhappy because of that, and can they please inspect it very, very rigorously, to see if there are any defects that would fault to door, and if they do this favour for you, they may find those, and report the door is faulty, requiring replacement. Note that a new Unit fire door costs around $3k to replace, so keep that in mind, too.
Excellent summary! However, owners should not confuse the issues of approval for renovations with a renovations by-law. Cosmetic renovations do not need approval, minor renovations need approval at a general meeting by an ordinary resolution (ie, majority vote) unless the Owners Corporation has passed a resolution that permits the strata committee to approve all minor renovations, and major renovations require approval at a general meeting as a special resolution (ie, essentially 75% vote to approve).
If you have this approval you can proceed. Note that the Owners Corporation only has sway over common property, and cannot directly control renovations of the owner’s property – for example if a wall is a dark line in the strata plan (ie a Unit boundary, or external wall) it is common property, but internal walls are owners property. But the OC also has sway over the works generally, such as noise, hours of work, disposal of waste, access via lifts, and parking etc.
A renovation by-law will define the works generally and specify those general things, and will specify how common property items are renovated. But the main purpose of a renovation by-law is to transfer the ongoing responsibility for maintenance and repair of the renovated items from the OC to the owner. If there is no renovation by-law registered, then the ongoing maintenance and repairs remains with the OC. So with a renovation by-law in place, if an owner replaces some plumbing in a common property wall, then the owner has to maintain it, and fix any leaks from then on. The warranty for the job attaches to the owner, so this is fair. But if there is no renovation by-law registered, if the new plumbing leaks inside the common property wall, then the Owners Corporation has to fix it at its cost.
So renovations just need to be approved. Lots of renovations don’t have a renovation by-law registered, so that just means that the Owners Corporation has to maintain the renovated work in the future rather than the owner would. After a period of time people forget who renovated what, so the OC then looks after it all.
And in that example, if the new plumbing leaks in a wall that is not a common property wall, such as an internal wall, it is always the responsibility of the owner to repair. That is assuming the plumbing just services that Unit. But if it is a pipe or system that services more than one lot, then that plumbing is common property, to be maintained by the OC. Many bathrooms have 2 walls that are common property (ie exterior or boundary walls with a neighbouring Unit) and 2 walls that are owners property. In which case, the cost of major repairs to replace tiles for example, should be split between the owner and the OC.
What do you mean “unlikely to get a special levy of $200k”? You actually don’t have a choice – the OC has a legal duty to repair and maintain common property. The OC cannot postpone the work because of costs. (So now is a good time to sell up, if you can!). Any owner can to to NCAT for an Order to carry out the repairs. Recent changes to strata law also allow the Dept of Fair Trading to step in and arrange the repairs. In that case the special levy will be raised, and any owner that cannot pay it will have to go bankrupt – or arrange a mortgage to pay it.
So the owners need to get involved. Call a general meeting to review the quotes, and go and get other cheaper quotes that fix the problem from other companies. Strata law requires at least 2 quotes for work over $30k.
But $200k does not seem unusual for a block with several Units. Currently in a multi-storey apartment building a failure of a bathroom waterproofing will cost the Owners Corporation around $30k to repair (current building code requires the bathroom to be stripped entirely, and a new waterproof membrane installed). The Design and Building Practitioners Act applies to waterproofing repairs, and so a design expert will be needed to oversee the work. I’d go with the $200k quote, if you cant get a better deal, as the longer you delay the more it will cost.
(And talk to your bank about a mortgage, or cashing in some of your super!)I think “Mortimer” is wrong – Councils do not get directly involved in fire safety upgrade Orders – rather they require the OC to use an accredited fire safety expert to inspect the building, and to provide a report to the OC of what fire safety equipment is required (which eventually becomes the Fire Safety Schedule). Council will then review the report, and then require it to be implemented (and may ask for changes, which you can negotiate about, or your expert can), and then provide a period for doing so (usually a couple of years).
So each OC should select the accredited fire safety expert with care, and find one that will take into account the owners’ wishes. Note that some fire safety experts are employed by fire safety inspection companies, which afterwards inspect and check the equipment listed on the Fire Safety Schedule each year (or more frequently for some kinds of equipment), and then prepare the Annual Fire Safety Statement (AFSS) which is filed with Council. The experts can innocently or deliberately, produce a report that requires the “bells and whistles”, because they might be unfamiliar with the rules (ie, that the fire safety equipment needs to be reasonable and according to the age of the building, and the building code at that time), or are hoping to cash in on their company being involved with planning and installing the new equipment.
Remember the NSW strata law requires that any job costing more than $30k must have at least 2 quotes. This would normally cover employing a fire safety expert to inspect and report on the building’s fire safety, and the later work to install the equipment. You may have to pay for each expert’s inspection, for them to quote on the job, which is commonly ~$350. Pick your fire safety expert carefully!
Voluntary fire safety upgrades are a good idea. Council will normally accept the building’s plans, as submitted voluntarily, which can be scheduled more flexibly, and so cost less, without being under pressure of deadlines. But the Fire Service or Council can trigger a fire safety upgrade Order at any time – a fire in the building (or many false alarms) will automatically trigger this. But ALL buildings are being brought into the system, and an owner complaining to the local Council about the fire safety in the building will usually trigger an Order too (and make that owner unpopular, when the costs are discovered). Councils are currently working through all the pre-1988 buildings and issuing Orders…
That is unnecessary. In NSW this would not work, because of the Cooper case, which makes a by-law that bans behavior that MIGHT create a problem invalid, and only permit restrictions in by-laws that actually are shown with evidence to create problems.
As a secretary of a NSW strata committee, and an electric car owner for the last 6 months, I can confirm that Type 1 charging is very satisfactory – namely installing a regular 3-pin socket in my parking bay on a circuit that runs through my Unit’s electricity meter. Electric cars can operate well with building power capacity limits, because the cars all (newer ones anyway) come with a function to re-charge on a time schedule. So a building with power capacity problems could have a by-law that electric cars may only be recharged using Type 1 recharging equipment, during off-peak hours – eg 8pm to 6am, for example, when little of the building’s power is being used.
Buildings hoping to avoid upgrading their power supply equipment are going to be disappointed – the government already has mandated that all electricity meters are to be changed to smart-type meters. This will involve replacing the old analogue meters with smart meters, adding a meter circuit-breaker, and often also replacing old non-compliant electricity switch-boards (eg, these can contain asbestos). Smart meters allow time-of-day rates, which make charging electric cars during off-peak times very sensible (at about half the cost of charging the car at the single rate).
But the charging circuits for cars should be put through the owner’s meter, and not using the common property power supply. Although there are solutions, like “ReadySteadyPlug” that allow common power circuits to be used, with users being individually billed for the power they consume. It is also possible to handle the use of common property power more simply, with a by-law that permits powering electric cars from the common power supply, upon application, with the owners submitting the power used readings from their cars, quarterly, and the OC on-charging a reasonable cost. But adding new circuits for owners sockets in the garage area will sometimes run into the same issue as above, with smart-meters, requiring the building to upgrade its switchboard (not to mention old switchboards often contain asbestos, so any work on it will require it to be replaced).
There are a lot of fire expert consultants available, so you should get another opinion. Google “building regulation consulting” or “fire regulation consulting” for your area.
You do not have to accept the proposal of your current consultant – they should be taking into account the age of the building (ie, the building code when it was originally built) and its architecture, as well as the costs of the work.
You could go back to the consultant and ask for another design without sprinklers, or if they must be added, then ask for the reasoning, and then talk to another consultant and check the reasoning is valid, or must be applied.The building code on fire regulations is complex, and there is usually a solution that better suits your needs. It’s like when you consult a lawyer, doctor or architect – if you don’t like their advice, get another opinion. If several all agree, then you are probably stuck with making the best of it.
We assume you are an owner / occupier? In which case, there is not much you can do. But your suggestion of moving out, entirely, and going to a BnB during the work makes sense., especially with asbestos involved. In fact, you may be required to do so.
But it’s unlikely you can get compensation, but it is worthwhile asking. At least ensure the committee includes you in the decision making, and gets input on what is being done, and when.
If you are an investor owner, and the unit is being leased, then you might be able to claim compensation for the loss of income, if you can show the Owners Corporation was negligent, and did not maintain the common property, and delayed the repairs unnecessarily. But an owner occupier can not usually take advantage of these provisions, because the difficulty to show and calculate a monetary loss, being a big impediment.
Just consider if your Unit was a free standing house. The same problem would require you to move out, fund the stay elsewhere, store your furniture at your own cost, and in that case, also fund the repairs. In strata you only pay the (unit entitlement %) cost of the repairs, so you are ahead! Hard to think that, I know…
I suggest you adjudicate the issue. Write up a summary of the argument which is covered very well above, and then provide it to the strata manager, and also tell them they should respond within 7 days with their counter argument (ie, specify those “privacy concerns” with reference to the law), and then both arguments can be submitted to Dept of Fair Trading, as a complaint about the manager’s conduct.
=> https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/strata/strata-complaintsI recommend other people with issues about strata managers do this as well. But I bet doing this will change the manager’s approach! Fair Trading are probably keen to discipline strata managers with all the publicity currently about rogue managers. They can only act on complaints, so make them! (Well, recent law changes means they can act without complaints, but they probably prefer actual complaints.)
But I understand the manager’s reluctance to provide the owner’s emails. If you do email to all the other owners, some of them will complain to the strata manager about their email address being made available. As well as strata managers being ignorant of the law (if that what it actually is), then so are the owners in the building, who assume their email and personal data is being kept confidential, like if they give that to a bank or solicitor. If owners then withdraw their email addresses, strata managers have to revert to regular mail for meeting and levy notices, which is a big impediment to how they run their businesses…
“4 Units in a small block” – but how are the Unit Entitlements split? Commonly in small blocks of equivalent Units, each owner has 1 Unit Entitlement, with in this case, the total being 4. Keep in mind that at general meetings, a regular motion requires a majority to pass – which if the Unit Entitlements are as assumed above, that means 3 of the 4 owners must agree. If the other 3 owners gang up, or are happy not spending the OC’s money, then the new owner cannot influence anything.
And for a special resolution (such as is required for major renovations) not only must a majority vote for a resolution, but also “not more that 25% are cast against” for it to pass, which in this situation of 4 equal Unit Entitlements, means that 3 of the 4 owners must vote for it. But sometimes in small blocks the Unit Entitlements are not split equally, and there might be (say) 100 Unit Entitlements, with 26 allocated to the 2 upstairs Units, and 24 to the downstairs. For special resolutions, either of the owners of the upstairs Units will have an effective veto over anything requiring a special resolution.
So before you buy into a small block, check how the Unit Entitlements are allocated, and find out if the majority and any owner with more than 25% of the entitlements is likely to treat OC expenditure…
Why do you think the water heater is in someone else’s property, and is not on common property? I’m doubtful that is the case… It may be that an owner has previously taken over the area illegally.
The starting point is the strata plan, which you should obtain, which show the lot property and common property. I’ll bet that shows the room with the heaters as common property. It is hard to sell common property, and it is unlikely this would have been done for a room that is has shared equipment belonging to all owners. And certainly, if that happened, then there would be written evidence, and a by-law.
Get advice from your strata manager, or else consult a strata lawyer. If someone enclosed common property without authority, then now you are aware of that, then they will need to restore it to its original condition.
I suggest you check out the strata managers for well-run strata buildings in your area. Go for a walk around your suburb, and note the addresses of other similar apartment buildings, that appear to be well maintained.
Find out the strata plan numbers for those buildings. The NSW government has a mapping database that will provide this information at:-
https://portal.spatial.nsw.gov.au/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?
You can zoom in, using the address function, and click on strata buildings to display their strata numbers.
Use the NSW government’s strata search at https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/strata/strata-search
Put in the strata plan number, and you can see their strata manager. Make a list of the local managers, and go and talk with them. But ask each strata manager about their ownership – many “independent” strata management companies are owned by big conglomerates. That isn’t necessarily a negative, but you should be aware of this information, when making a decision – do you want a small personalised strata company, or a large one?
I checked the BCA – Table F2.1, and a washtub is required or else there can be a shared laundry among 4 Units. But the current BCA is not applicable to existing buildings, unless there is a big renovation happening.
The strata manager takes instructions from the strata committee, and you did not mention if you are on that? All 4 owners should go on the strata committee, and the committee should at its first strata committee meeting pass a resolution that all spending and invoices will be provided to the committee, and the treasurer (or perhaps 2 members – come up with a formula), must approve them.
That requirement is for class 1 buildings – ie detached houses, and does not apply to class 2 buildings, such as shared apartment complex Units.
Section 139(2) of the Strata Schemes Management Act prevents an Owners Corporation from restricting whom a lot can the leased to… “s139(2) By-law cannot prevent dealing relating to lot – No by-law is capable of operating to prohibit or restrict the devolution of a lot or a transfer, lease, mortgage or other dealing relating to a lot.”
The person who is leasing the parking bay IS a resident in the building, and must be treated equally to all other residents. That does lead to the curious situation, that their visitors can also, in theory, use your visitors parking spots!
Still, they must obey your building’s by-laws. Make sure they are registered on the strata roll, and that a section 258 Notice has been filed by the owner/agent to record this, which is mandatory. In a practical response, you could talk to the owner of that bay, and see if they can rent it instead to someone living in a Unit in your building, who wants a 2nd parking bay? Often the owner is renting the parking spot informally, and requiring them to record the leasing details under s.258 will make them realise they need to draw up a lease, and disclose the income for tax purposes.
Don’t let the owner shrug off the s.258 Notice, if they say that they don’t have a written lease, and don’t want to arrange one. Their parking tenant must be on the strata roll, or else they are not a resident, and if not a resident then they can’t park in the garage. The s.258 Notice must be provided within 14 days of the lease commencing, too. The tenant can file the s.258 Notice themselves. But you can refuse to allow the person to park there until the roll is updated, and s.139(2) assumes the owner then follows the other requirements of the Act.
I think you could amend your by-laws to only allow visitors to residents who are from the residential lots to use the visitors bays. There are other exclusions in the Act for owners of utility (ie carpark) lots, and a properly drafted by-law would probably be legally enforceable. In fact, you could probably act on that assumption, and once the parking leasee is on the strata roll, you could issue a by-law breach notice, on the basis that he is not entitled to allow his visitors to use the visitors parking bays, because he is only leasing a carparking bay, and car parking bays do not normally get visitors. But check the wording of your parking by-laws.