Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Found the case I was thinking of, it is a very interesting one. This can be distinguished in a number of ways, not least of all this was a very expensive heritage building, and the applicant wanted to install a complete elevator in the stairwell.
The key issue is reasonableness, i.e. if approval is not given, was the refusal to give approval unreasonable (the converse of that being that if there are reasonable grounds for refusing approval, then it is much more likely that the refusal would not be reversed)
No I haven’t. As a starting point, I suggest that it is not up to the Committee or the OC to come up with proposals or solutions for this particular issue. It is the role of the Committee and ultimately the OC to consider and make a decision on proposals of this kind that are put to them.
This might sound hard-hearted, but I suggest that you not do any research or any other work at this stage, until a properly scoped proposal is lodged with the Committee. You can then take it from there. This has nothing to do with disability discrimination or human rights.
Sir Humphrey is right. In terms of NSW law and generally, the issue is that there are certain powers that are reserved to the owners, they can’t be “given” to the Committee. That is – for numerous matters the only proper exercise of power is by the owners voting at a general meeting, either by ordinary or special resolution, the latter requiring 75%.
This includes matters such as changes to common property.
So in this case it is not a matter of revoking whatever power was purported to be given to the Committee, because you can’t give that power to the Committee. If the Committee is making decisions such as changing common property without the approval of the owners voting at a general meeting, then they are acting ultra vires (outside their power).
I suggest you contact the strata manager at first instance and ask them on what grounds they believe that the Committee is acting within their powers and in accordance with the Act. It is likely that the manager is also clueless, in which case you will have to escalate the issue. The thing is, if you put the Committee on notice that they are acting outside their power/authority, and they continue to do so, they can be liable for those acts.
The legislation doesn’t apply to an existing building Lady Penelope.
Am not sure from your post whether the owner has lodged a fully scoped proposal to install the chairlift. Until they do, you don’t have to do anything.
Any such scope would include detailed specifications regarding the type of chairlift, how that fits with the type of stairs you have, all health and safety considerations etc. This would include matters such as fire and emergency issues – if there is only one staircase this would be a key factor and it is possible that would prevent the installation anyway. Council approval may be required.
The owner would also have to accept responsibility for the installation, i.e. the cost and ongoing maintenance, and removal. In those circumstances the OC would be reasonable to ask for some form of financial compensation.
Essentially the OC would be granting an owner a form of licence to use the common property for their benefit, which on any analysis would disadvantage other owners.
Once the Committee is provided with the proposal it is then up to them to consider it, and either recommend it or not recommend it to a general meeting. Personally, I think it is a big ask and if that proposal were put to me I would say no. It is a very difficult situation when someone loses their mobility and can no longer live in their home, but it is not uncommon. I live at the top of four flights of stairs and recently broke my leg very badly – I have been able to leave my apartment three times in 7 weeks. I have always recognised that if my mobility were affected permanently then I would have to move.
If the OC refused consent for the installation the owner could take action on the basis that the refusal was unreasonable, but they would have to prove that in the circumstances it is unreasonable.
There has been a case on this issue, where the owner did succeed but each case is different, and that was a very different type of building, and the lift was a permanent installation that did not impede the stairs etc. (sorry can’t find the case)
It is not covered by the Privacy Laws. There is extensive information available on the OAIC website, it is very helpful.
The Privacy regulatory framework is primarily aimed at organisations that collect and use personal information (and also sensitive information) – personal information has a specific definition. The laws deal with how the information is collected and stored/secured, and the use that can be made of that information.
As a general rule, strata schemes fall outside the ambit of the Privacy framework.
I think it is reasonable that the OP not have his/her full name and address published and provided to a range of people, in circumstances where it is not necessary. I suggest your best option is to find a solicitor friend and get them to write a letter to the strata manager.
I am not going to argue the finer legal points with you Lady Penelope. We have used this approach on a number of occasions. If you think a contractor is going to start debating a legal issue then don’t try it – but I know from experience the majority will not. If an owner does not have approval, including having given details of contractors and insurance, then both they and the contractor are on shaky ground.
If the owner has not been granted permission to undertake the works then his contractors are trespassing on the common property. Tell them they need to leave (we have done that before).
I know everyone has differing opinions but come on, the common property is not an extension of your wardrobe, if you don’t like them inside,why is it ok to leave them on the common property?
The residents downstairs occasionally do this – I don’t want visitors coming in and seeing a motley collection of shoes. I usually remove them and hand them back to their owners.
Yes, but it’s not an interim order, it’s an order.
Refer above, section 122(4) – where the owner/occupier refuses access the OC can apply for an order for access.
I’m not sure what the problem is, the owner paid more than they should have and asked for a refund.
Why should the OC have to approve it, the owner doesn’t owe the OC anything.
Being on the Committee is irrelevant.
The son has to be nominated at each AGM, so at each AGM the owner would have to do the nomination.
No, that’s not right.
A proxy gives a person the right to vote at a meeting. You do that on a proxy form. I am not sure from what you say whether there was a valid proxy.
A proxy does not give the holder the right to nominate for election to the Committee.
Nomination for the Committee is a separate matter and must be from an owner, either in person or in writing. (note it could also be from an appointed legal representative but let’s leave that) So it has to be the owner specifically saying, I nominate X for election to the Committee.
So from what you said the son was not validly nominated.
That is not the issue. Where you run this type of business in a strata scheme this affects the strata insurance, as visitors to the business will not be covered for public liability unless the insurance cover is changed to commercial. This will increase premiums, and may change the scheme’s classification. The relevant person needs to seek permission.
My other thought was that if the fence is partly the owner’s responsibility (not sure how that works), the owner should claim their part on their insurance.