Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Because the parquetry flooring was the original flooring and formed part of the common property, which is often the case.
We can debate who is responsible for damage to owner’s property caused by a failure in the common property, but in our scheme we have paid for that type of damage. Of course, an owner should be insured to cover that.
There seems to be a general lack of understanding of the connection between the annual budget and levies. The budget sets out what the OC believes will be the costs for the next year, you then set the levies accordingly. If you are doing the job properly, you would include the cost of planned capital works and refer to how much the OC has on hand.
I worked for several years to convince the owners in our scheme to raise the levies to a realistic amount – in the first year the owners actually reduced the levies, even though we had a long list of things that needed to be done. After part of the building had to be closed off for works that took 3 years, they changed their minds. We increased the levies by 25% two years in a row, i.e. we increaded them by 50%. They are high, but we have had the money on hand to do a range of items with no special levies. I know some people don’t agree with that approach, but it works for us.
To answer your question, there is no limit to an increase in levies.
Yes of course you can, provided the other owners agree (special resolution). The neighbours are irrelevant unless you’re part of a larger scheme.
I am very anti clothes dryers!
Isn’t this the issue you raised in another post?
Well – it’s not illegal.
The question I would be asking is why the secretary is giving unilateral instructions to the strata manager to suit themselves.
I don’t think the issue is where the termites might have come from, or what the tenant might do to solve the problem. The issue is that the house they are paying to live in is infested with insects to an extreme degree – this is a breach of the lease. The tenant should advise the agent and landlord of this, and tell them they will contact Fair Trading if the situation is not rectified.
Keep paying the rent, a breach doesn’t justify a breach.
You can’t live in a property infested with termites, it’s a fundamental breach of the lease. Refer here.
I’m not sure social engineering is the answer to the OP’s issue.
If the resident’s behaviour is interfering with the owner’s reasonable enjoyment of their property, then they have grounds for complaint.
153 OWNERS, OCCUPIERS AND OTHER PERSONS NOT TO CREATE NUISANCE
(1) An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession, tenant or occupier of a lot in a strata scheme must not:
(a) use or enjoy the lot, or permit the lot to be used or enjoyed, in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not), or
(b) use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the common property by the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the common property, or
(c) use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of any other lot by the occupier of the lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the lot.
Complaints about other people are fine and reasonable, complaints about you are just plain vexatious. Of course they are going to say you are vexatious, they don’t want to consider that they are doing anything wrong.
But seriously – having your TV on at full blast and leaving the door open is highly likely to disturb other people, and it is not reasonable to stand in the hallway talking at the top of your voice. As the OP says, it seems that the offenders are using the common property as quasi-living space.
My downstairs neighbour recently got a new TV, and I had to point out to her that the sound is so loud that it reverberates through my floor. She didn’t know, so she has taken steps to keep it down to a reasonable level. As I type this there are children screaming in the courtyard, but that is a whole other story….
This thread is a year old?
What more do you want, the Council has given you confirmation.
You made the complaint, it has nothing to do with the OC.
Right – so you have a group of people who don’t want to give email addresses for receipt of notices, and then when notices of meeting are mailed to them, they don’t get them.
This is remarkable.
I suggest you toughen up, and if someone says they didn’t get a notice, too bad. And stop running around after them.
In relation to a quorum, the legislation now provides that if there isn’t a quorum, you adjourn, and then if there is still no quorum the meeting can go ahead.
Section 264 provides that if someone’s email address is on the strata roll you can serve notices to them by email.
In relation to Committee meetings, Schedule 2 provides that for large schemes notice must be given to each Committee member and each owner either by post or by leaving at the address of the lot. In the case of other schemes, notice is given by putting the notice on the notice board – you don’t have to mail it or leave it at the address.
Note in relation to general meetings that notice must also be given to any tenants that have been notified in accordance with the Act.
On the postage issue – you certainly don’t need to postpone or cancel a meeting because a notice isn’t received. Provided it is sent within the timeframe, notice has been given. Section 76 of the Interpretations Act provides that a letter is deemed to have been received 4 working days after it is posted.
You can’t use the noticeboard for notices of general meeting.
I would expect the OC to obtain quotes for reinstatement and then reach a figure that the OC is willing to pay toward the works. The amount has to be based on something.
Setting aside noise etc., a resident cannot place items on the common property without approval of the OC. Whose table and seats are they?