Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I have better things to do than assemble furniture, I always pay someone to do it, just like I pay others to do things like cleaning the windows. Airtasker is a great place to find people who will do all sorts of jobs you don’t want to do. (no I am in no way affiliated with them)
1. Jimmy is correct, Fair Trading is wrong. You can take action to make the Committee enforce a by-law. In this case however that is irrelevant.
2. There are a lot of lawyers, contact the Law Society (I assume you are in NSW) and ask them to refer to you one.
Dear me. For a start, an executive committee member cannot be paid without approval of the owners at the AGM. So unless there was a resolution to pay the Secretary/Treasure at the AGM which was approved by the owners, the payment is illegal. This type of approval has to be done after the services have been provided.
Note the Committee does not have the power to approve such a payment.
Section 95 of the Act provides that if an audit is carried out, it must be in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.
From the information you have provided, whatever it is that this person has provided is not an “audit”. An audit is conducted by an independent third party who is qualified to carry out the work.
I am not sure if it is illegal to hold oneself out as an auditor, but I would be telling the Committee member to hand the money back, and if you want to have an audit, get someone qualified to do it. It may also be a good idea to remove this person from their position as Secretary/Treasurer and tell the manager they must not pay any invoices or expenses without sign-off from the Committee.
The short answer to that is no. Damage to a lot does not encompass loss of rent due to the lot being uninhabitable. “Damage to a lot or to common property” means physical damage, which the owner would then have to make good, or pay to make good.
Note in terms of enforcing that by-law (or any by-law) it has to be enforced by the OC, an individual owner can’t take action to enforce the by-law. The only thing they can do is seek to have the OC enforce it. But that by-law won’t help you here.
I agree with Jimmy, you should get a lawyer, or just move on. I think you do have a case, but the issues need sound legal advice.
If you run a website like that you can be sued in relation to content posted on it, because you/the website is the publisher.
Yes I agree – this doesn’t just apply to balcony doors, it can be anything, for example a friend of mine is in a building where they did extensive works for a fire upgrade. The owners agreed that the rectification works that might be necessary for each apartment would be paid for by the respective owners.
If the owners insisted on the OC paying, they are paying for it anyway, and remember if the OC is paying they can determine who does the works. Save a lot of time and grief and get on with it.
If you obtained approval to remove the air conditioning units, then it must have been considered by the Committee at the very least. What did they say? From what you have said it is likely they have assumed you will be bearing the expense. It also sounds like you are removing the air conditioners and reinstating the windows, is that correct, is that what you have received approval to do?
If it was a bad DIY job it is highly likely that the person who did it didn’t get permission. If they did get permission, then as Jimmy says there may be something in the by-laws or the records indicating who is responsible. If no permission was given then it is arguable that you could require the OC to reinstate the common property (assuming the windows are common property).
However, you bought the property knowing that the hideous installations were there, and I suggest it would not be a wise move to say to the OC that they should pay for what you are doing. On the plus side, if it is an investment property you can include it in your tax.
Flame Tree I don’t really understand your post, but that is not how insurance works. Insurance policies do not cover you for everything, no matter what, if they did all insurers would be broke.
I think the reason Alfredo has asked the question is a legitimate concern as to whether unapproved works by an owner will affect insurance coverage. T
The answer is maybe. If the owner did works that affected the common property without approval, and then an insurance claim arose in relation to issues related to that common property, and the insurer knew that the owner had done those works, then the insurer might deny the claim. Note that an insurance contract is one of utmost good faith, so both parties have to disclose everything they know that may be relevant to the contract.
Similarly – if an owner did something with their property which didn’t comply with the law or regulations, such as using part of their property in a way that was in breach of the law, then an insurer could deny a claim. What I mean by that is for example if there were an area that did not meet the requirements for a habitable space, and an owner used it as a habitable space.
Hope that makes sense.
Yes – there’s something missing here. Do you have a report from the plumbers saying what the problem was and what was causing it?
As Jimmy says, if it was the taps then the responsibility lies with the lot owners. But a tap dripping into a bathtub wouldn’t usually result in drips in the unit below.
Sir Humphrey is right – three on the Committee, two want to have the CCTV, the majority rules. Just approve the resolution and get on with it.
If they are private washing machines and dryers then the owners of those appliances can’t put them on common property without the permission of the OC. So strictly speaking the OC could remove them – although based on what Harmony has said it might be difficult to get a resolution for removal.
However, I suggest you use that as a starting point – if those owners want to put their machines on common property they need the permission of the OC, and that should come with conditions, i.e. that the owners pay for the electricity use. Why don’t you speak to an electrician about the options available to work out the electricity usage.
5 dryers in a building of 8 units is a hell of a lot of dryers, what a waste of electricity when you could use a clothesline!
The strata manager is not complying with the law, he is impeding the function of the OC, and lying (or ignorant) about how the law works. Unfortunately there are managers who do not act in a professional manner, and this one is a good example.
A line has to be drawn somewhere, the Committee can give notice under section 181 of the Act requiring the manager to provide the strata roll. It isn’t a trivial matter, I have had to deal with this type of thing, and my experience has been that it is better to make it clear that you will not tolerate someone mucking you around.
The OC is reliant on the owner complying with section 258 of the Act which requires notification of a tenancy within 14 days. The notice must include the name and address for service of notices of the tenant, and any agent details.
Owners often fail to do this, so if it comes to your attention you can ask the strata manager to contact the owner, but the onus is on the owner.
In NSW (and I believe other jurisdictions, unless there is some peculiarity), the records of the OC are the property of the OC. This means that the Strata Committee is entitled to a copy of those records. This includes the strata roll (unredacted).
The strata manager holds the records as agent of the OC – the OC is the owner of the records.
There are no privacy issues in this case – the collection and access to the information is required by the Act.
Tell the agent to pull his head in and give you the information.