Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I agree with Lady Penelope, there are two separate issues here, and the addition of the sun screens is an improvement to the common property.
If the two owners want those sun screens then they should be seeking approval to have them installed at their cost, with the attendant exclusive use by-law which makes them responsible for those sun screens.
That is hilarious, the by-law is not intellectual property, or if it is, any rights would belong to the person who drafted it.
Any owner must be provided with a copy of the by-laws, just tell the strata manager to provide you with a full set of them, and then use the relevant by-law to draft yours.
You don’t need it unless you employ someone or the scheme is mixed residential and commercial. Refer here:
Don’t waste your money.
Does the OC employ anyone? If they don’t, then WCI is not needed.
Note that employment is employment, where the person is an employee, paid a salary/wages, superannuation.
It is not up to the strata committee to tell you whether your lawyer is qualified. As Jimmy says, it would be a good idea to have someone who specialises in the area, but tell the Committee to deal with the issue, not the messenger.
You should contact the lawyer and ask them on what basis they believed the meeting was chargeable to the OC – that is why you have a costs agreement.
And advise the lawyer in writing that they are not to meet with individual Committee members unless it is authorised by a resolution of the Committee.
Is the storage space on common property or does the space form part of your lot?
Would the power point use power that is paid for by the OC, or would you be responsible for it?
If the space forms part of your lot, query whether you have to ask permission, but if it connected in a way that you weren’t paying for the power, then I would say perhaps they are within their rights.
If it were being connected in a way such that you paid for the power, I don’t see what the problem is, you could apply their logic to power points within your apartment…
However – if they have already permitted another owner to do it, find out what the arrangements were, and if yours are the same you have grounds for saying that they are being unreasonable (or the other owner should remove theirs).
Sure claim on the OC insurance, but tell the owner he will have to remove the furniture or place it in such a way that it doesn’t happen again because if it does, the insurer won’t pay.
You should also get a written scope of works from the tradesman that did the works, and confirmation from that tradesman that the works comply with all relevant standards – otherwise it will have to be removed.
Presuming the owner goes with getting the approval of the owners and a by-law, the scope should be attached to the by-law.
The requirement is that the lock must restrict any opening of the relevant window to 12.5 cm. The windows you refer to all need those locks, as the current ones don’t do that. The windows might be locked, but if they were unlocked you could open them more than 12.5 cm. The alternative would be to adjust those windows so they could not be opened at all.
You’re not setting the budget correctly – even allowing for the increase in insurance, if things are that tight. I suggest you sit down with the manager and draw up a realistic projection of your outgoings. In this case these are not unexpected costs, they are known costs – did you budget for any unanticipated expenses?
If the insurance went up 25%, did you get other quotes?
By the way your manager sounds hopeless, hope his fees aren’t too much.
You can’t appeal it. The best option is to persuade enough owners not to approve the by-laws, or if they are passed, to subsequently amend the by-laws. Note my comments above, you could apply to the Tribunal, but on what grounds?
Lady Penelope, the OP has a cat that was the subject of Tribunal proceedings. Refer other posts.
tony – you have posted three times on what is essentially the same issue, it is easier if you can do it in one post.
As a general comment, “unjust” is an elastic concept and can be highly subjective. What one person may believe is unjust in the circumstances, another will believe is reasonable. The issue in strata is usually whether something is reasonable.
In the case of by-laws, if the required proportion of owners determine that they want certain rules in place, which may include prohibiting animals, that is what the majority of owners have decided. You have mentioned another issue in relation to outside furniture – many schemes have rules like this, and other rules providing that window treatments must conform to a certain type and colour. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Other rules that go to matters which are not the concern of the OC may be determined to be unreasonable.
I love animals and own a dog – I would never suggest that banning animals is a good idea. But I can’t say it is unjust.
One lot – one vote, proxy or otherwise, unless a poll is called and then votes are allocated by unit entitlement.
The other owner could try to rally votes, but so can you – you have the right to get a copy of the strata roll.