[RL]

Thanks UberOwner, that’s abundantly clear then. The Legal Aid page referred to above:
https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/my-housing/tenancy/eviction

Under “Valid reasons for your eviction”

[RL]

Thank you (again) Jimmy.

Just to be absolutely clear (at the risk of being irritating):

– Ending the lease DURING the fixed term is clearly breaking the lease and should require justification.

– Ending a month-to-month lease is also breaking the lease, because by definition it has no end date.

– But at the end of the fixed term, it seems reasonable to ask the tenant to either start another fixed term or vacate – both parties have received exactly what they agreed to up front.

The reason I prefer annual fixed terms (renewed annually, at the tenant’s sole discretion) is simply that the property is in a seasonal area and it’s much easier to find a tenant in summer than in winter.

[RL]

Jimmy-T wrote:

Should you wait until the waterproofing fails so you get a big contribution towards your bathroom reno? That’s up to individuals and how long they are prepare to live in a flat with a 40-year-old bathroom

Thanks for the replies!

As for how long an owner is prepared to tolerate an original bathroom … it also depends on whether they live there at all, or just rent it out to people who need somewhere to live and won’t risk complaining about how old the bathroom is.  In this case, it’s the latter, unfortunately.

It’s a matter of some concern and debate in the OC, as it is far from the only “original bathroom in a rented-out apartment by a couldn’t-care-less absentee owner”, and there’s a precedent about to be set.

Even the most casual inspection inside the unit would have shown the problem starting, even years ago.  The bubbling paint in living areas adjoining the wet areas; the mouldy carpet; the built-in wardrobes expanding and splitting due to damp; the corrosion on doorframes.  The owner’s agent made no inspections, the tenants reported no problems.

So assuming we can’t opt out of dropping the $30k in this case, is there anything the OC can do to prevent other owners from taking advantage of this opportunity in future?  Could a by-law ensure that owners and/or their agents report these problems before they become so expensive, or else they wear the cost of their negligence?

scotlandx wrote:

the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only

By “replacement cost only” do you mean like-for-like?  That is the OC will pay to repair to the same standard as was there, and if you want an upgrade you pay the difference yourself?

Regards

RL

[RL]

We’ve also experienced this at our scheme (once) recently.  A committee member spotted someone unfamiliar going through the yellow bins, asked if he was a guest of anyone resident here and he said “no I am just doing a community service and recycling properly”. The committee member politely explained he should not be here, a security matter, families with small children, past breakins/theft etc etc. Even offered for him to finish what he was doing, just this once. He left the place in a tidy state and hasn’t been back (that we’ve seen). Though I expect many other bin raiders wouldn’t.

My concern about this (besides the obvious ones mentioned) is that kerbside recycling is in a crisis in Australia as recycled materials are not competitive with imported new cheap materials. If kerbside recyclers can’t realize a revenue stream, either consumers will pay the shortfall to keep them operating (higher council rates or supermarket shelf prices), or the lot will go to landfill. Currently, kerbside recyclers can collect the deposit on eligible containers they collect from kerbside recycling. If raiders pick out the eligible containers and cash in, the recycler is left with lower value materials and consumers/ratepayers will make up the difference.  So “I am just doing a community service and recycling properly” is shown to be a sham — the stuff was going to be recycled anyway (and will probably end up at the same place) and all that’s happened is that ratepayers’ money is jingling around in the raider’s pocket.

[RL]

Thanks very much Whale. That is good news.

[RL]

I would expect that since an owners corporation (O/C) is a separate entity to the owners that comprise it, a loss to the O/C is distinct from a loss to an individual owners – the fact that the O/C no longer has that money to spend on the owner’s building does not mean the individual owner incurred a loss.

If I’m wrong, and the cascading damages effect described by pmo could really happen, leaving the executive committee (E/C) members personally holding the can for the entire cost of damages, then bye-bye committee — and good luck getting anyone else in the building to stand for office and put their personal finances at risk as well as all the other sacrifices E/C members make in time and effort….

Cheers

RL

* for clarity, names and acronyms tidied-up by Mod. (1305hrs).

[RL]

Not many people have heard of them, they are a fairly new product category.  They look just like a solar PV panel or solar hot water (without the tank) and are about the same size.

https://www.solarventinsw.com.au/

https://www.heatwithsolar.com.au/sam-solar-air-module/

https://www.solarventi.com/

Pumping air involves large capacity ducting which is going to be an eyesore running down the side of the building and also air is not a very good conductor of heat – See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/is-it-really-easy-being-green/installing-solar-heating-how-to-proceed/#spPostForm

The warm air is pumped with a solar powered fan integrated in the panel. It does NOT rely on air conducting heat. There was a photo of one installation with a duct down the building, the duct looks just like normal PVC downpipe, about six inches across.  Hardly an eyesore.  I can’t find the photo now.

it only works when the sun is shining, not exactly the time that you really want space heating – See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/is-it-really-easy-being-green/installing-solar-heating-how-to-proceed/#spPostForm

Sydney winter has plenty of sun, but it’s still cold…. ???

[RL]

Thanks Whale, at the risk of going off-topic, I probably wasn’t clear, I’m not talking about a future owner finding a way to make the OC maintain the panel, I’m talking about a future owner refusing to remove the panel when everyone else in the building wants it removed.

Here’s a stupid example: I propose to put my own panel that covers 100% of the roof and to maintain it under S.65A. The OC has a “duhh” moment and votes in favour and the by-law is registered. Ten years later grid electricity costs $10 per kWh and solar panels cost a few cents, and the other owners would like to install their own solar panels. But there is still a special by-law that approves me having my panel covering 100% of the roof, and it can’t be revoked without my permission. Why would I relinquish the roof space?

Just trying to understand the reasoning of S.65A(5).

You are right that it cuts both ways, needless to say if the OC changed its mind after 1 week I would be quite out of pocket.  Surely it would be better for the owner and the OC to negotiate compensation for this case and have it recorded in the SBL, rather than the Act giving one side an outright power of veto.

[RL]

Actually after re-reading Whale’s reply, I think I answered my own question….
Approval can be given by special resolution, EITHER by conferring “a licence to use the whole or any specified part of the common property” under S.51(1)(b) OR by authorising an owner to “erect a new structure on the common property” under S.65A(1)(c). However I note that in EITHER case the OC can’t revoke its consent without my permission because S.65A(5) gives the same right as S.52… “A by-law made for the purposes of this section … must not be amended or repealed unless … the owners corporation has obtained the written consent of the owner concerned”.  Again I think others would find this onerous.  In fact I’m amazed anything gets approved under either S.65A or S.52, except on stacked OC’s.  Imagine being in the dire situation I linked to below.

RL

[RL]

Thanks, that all seems pretty clear then.  A special resolution is required.

In the ACT, as Peter says, the EC has a simplified method to approve sustainability measures by ordinary (majority) resolution, I think it may refer to this, though even that only covers “Owners corporations that wish to install sustainability or utility infrastructure on common property. Individual owners wishing to install infrastructure on their own unit must comply with the rules of the owners corporation about building or altering of structures in or on units”.

In NSW what is the alternative to S.65A?  One of the conditions others would probably find onerous (I certainly would) is that under S.51&52, a by-law that gives an owner “a licence to use the whole or any specified part of the common property in a particular manner or for particular purposes” is IMPOSSIBLE for the OC to revoke without the consent of that owner.  I could decide to block future installation of solar panels, or maybe even block replacement of the roof..?? See for example this scenario.

Could the OC to make a by-law that says I can install the system at my cost, all maintenance is at my cost, and that consent for the purposes of S.52 is taken as given and the OC can revoke the approval at any time by (say) another special resolution?

Even better, could the OC to make a by-law that gives them equivalent powers to the ACT legislation, and would allow the OC to grant a revocable approval to an owner?

I may have this totally wrong, Division 4 may not apply at all.  I hope not.

Thanks

RL

[RL]

Just to close off a resolution to this: I was not available in the days after the damage happened and it was not followed up on.

I patched up the carpet with scissors and a bit of glue (after googling “carpet repairs”) and got a pretty good result for 15 minutes work!

RL

[RL]

It sounds like the building you’re in is quite dysfunctional!  My commiserations…

One thing the EC may be wary of, is creating a perception of double standards.  They might worry that once one owner has a hard floor, other owners will be able to say “THAT owner put in a hard floor, so why can’t I put one in.”  Even though the answer may be obvious (one lot has a carpark under it, the other doesn’t) there can still be a perception that it is unfair.  The EC I am on is struggling with this exact issue in my building.

A family I know has two pre-teen kids, one with lactose intolerance and one without.  The lactose intolerant one can’t have ice cream.  So NOBODY gets ice cream, including the parents.  Not logical, but saves massive temper tantrums.

Some people maintain their 5-year-old sense of injustice right through to adulthood….

RL

[RL]

Thanks Mr Thomson!

How on earth do we price this damage though? Can’t expect them to pay for whole new carpet on the stairwell, that would be a bit steep. But I don’t know if the holes can be repaired, or how.  Are there professional carpet repairers?  Do we need to have kept some offcuts from the carpet?

 

[RL]

Just to further muddy the waters here.

https://photorights.4020.net/ discusses photographers’ rights in NSW, and is written by a photographer who is also a qualified solicitor. It’s regularly updated and I find it trustworthy.

So my interpretation (which may be wrong) is:

– There is no “right to privacy” in Australia. “A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed”.  So, photos of people or private property are legal unless another law prevents it.  (Look at Google Street View.)

– One such law is, if you are ON private property, under common law the property owner can deny you permission to take photos. This does not apply here as the webcam is apparently situated in the lot owner’s property.

– Other laws cover “voyeurism”.  However according to the site they are limited to sexualized photos (“upskirting”, “private parts” etc) so are unlikely to apply.

– The “Surveillance Devices Act 1999” mentioned below is Victorian legislation so also will not apply. I also suspect “private activity” in that act is probably quite narrowly defined. The corresponding “SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 2007 – SECT 8” of NSW is more restrictive and would not apply.  https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sda2007210/s8.html

– Photos of children are not a special case

– The NSW Workplace Surveillance Act (2005) mentioned, may apply.

I also expect the property rights of the lot itself could be overridden by a special by-law (as occurs already for noise etc) if the owners corp was to make one.  On the other hand, another discussion here recommended a by-law saying the OC could install surveillance itself…

Cheers

 

[Author]

Replies