Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You’re welcome.
Just to clarify – as Jimmy has pointed out all of those costs, e.g. legals, would be borne by the resident.
Bear in mind that with something like that it is likely you would have to redraw the strata scheme, which would incur significant legal expense.
Also re building living space underground – Building Code sets certain requirements for habitable areas, including windows, ceiling height and ventilation. If someone was wanting to put bedrooms underground it would be very difficult to meet those requirements.
proudsceptic is right, unless the resident owns that area it is a hypothetical question.
No that is not what I said – I have now twice said that your threshold question is whether or not the balcony, including the slab and the membrane, is common property or if it forms part of the lot. That then determines if the OC is responsible for any repairs or the owner.
I don’t know if your solicitor is an expert on strata, but you need to get an answer to that question before you start worrying about what the problem is with the balcony. If your solicitor is not a strata expert I strongly suggest you seek advice from an expert.
It doesn’t matter if you seek an order by yourself or with another person, if you are right then you have grounds to seek an order.
If the balcony is not common property the other matters such as independent advice are irrelevant, so I suggest you get a definitive answer on that. Good luck.
If you know the tenant moved out on that day, and can prove there was no damage previously, contact the owner and tell them that their tenant damaged the wall.
If the levies for one or more units are paid, the owner can vote at the AGM in respect of those unit entitlements.
Only if the EC/OC has instructed the strata manager to invest the funds. Note that the types of investment are limited, refer section 73 of the Act.
73 Can money in administrative fund or sinking fund be invested?
(1) An owners corporation may invest any money in its administrative fund or sinking fund in any manner permitted by law for the investment of trust funds or in any prescribed investment.
(2) Any interest received on an investment made under this section forms part of the fund to which the investment belongs.As Jimmy has said, it doesn’t matter how many people decide something, if it is illegal or contravenes legislation, or even in some cases cuts across someone’s rights then it can’t/shouldn’t proceed.
The other owners could resolve to remove my front door – that doesn’t mean they can actually remove my front door.
1. Threshold question – is the balcony common property or is it on the owner’s title? If it is not common property then the OC should not be paying for it at all, and you have a good case for seeking an order to stop it.
2. If the balcony were common property and an owner was seeking compensation for purported loss or costs incurred due to works, the owner would have to quantify that loss, or provide evidence of those costs. If the owner were to claim for loss/reduction of rent, they would have to provide evidence of that, e.g. agreement with the tenants, in writing. It is then up to the OC to determine whether they believe it is appropriate to pay the owner anything.
The reduction would also have to be reasonable taking into account a range of factors including the size of the balcony relative to the apartment and the inconvenience (if any) to the tenants.
If an OC is responsible for carrying out repairs they have full control of those works, including any investigation and obtaining reports etc., following through to determining scope of works etc. If it is the OC’s money then it should not rely on reports of the owner. Note that the OC has the right to enter the premises to carry out repairs.
No they can’t withdraw approval because from what you have outlined above, no approval has been given – there has been no approval by the owners at a general meeting of what you want to do. (I may be wrong but from what you said there has been no general meeting?)
I suggest you wait for the outcome of the adjudication, but going by what you have said, why don’t you put in another application for appointment of a compulsory strata manager, because this scheme sounds like an absolute mess? (I have now suggested this for two posters, must be something in the air)
Yes the OC can regulate the use of its common property and what happens on it – because it is common property and the OC is highly likely to be liable for anything that happens on it. That could prove to be very expensive.
I suggest your starting point is your insurer – they need to be advised about what is going on, and you should seek confirmation that the OC is covered for the ambit of those activities. I would guess that they will say no. That gives you a very good basis for bringing things under control.
Unit entitlement is based on value and is determined at the time of registration of the strata scheme.
You can apply for reallocation of unit entitlements on the basis that at the time they were determined they were unreasonable. The hurdle is quite high, but some cases have been successful. You say that some units are bigger, but other factors also have to be taken into account such as position, views etc.
You cannot impose higher levies on owners who have tenants that damage the common property, because the levies are determined by unit entitlement and that can’t be changed. There are a number of ways that you could approach the problem:
– if you have evidence that a tenant has damaged common property, document it (this may include photos, witness statements etc.) Keep the invoice amount for the repairs and have the EC resolve to charge it to that unit, and serve notice on the owner. That amount does not form part of the levies but is a debt that you can seek to enforce against the owner.
– you could consider a by-law that provides in relation to tenanted units that the relevant owners must pay a certain amount as a bond which would be refundable upon sale of the unit or where it is not tenanted. Of course you would have to get the agreement of the owners to approve the by-law which may be difficult, but it draws attention to the issue.
Rhea you have two separate posts on the same topic.
In relation to the levies and payment arrangements – the new Act that comes into effect at the end of this month provides that an owners corporation can agree with an owner to a payment plan for overdue levies. This can only be for 12 months but can be extended by a further resolution of the OC. The OC can also resolve not to charge an owner interest on overdue levies. Refer section 85 of that Act. So what you need is a resolution of the owners at a general meeting to enter into the payment arrangement with the relevant owner.
Similar provisions applied under the old (current) Act. As proudsceptic says, these types of arrangements are not uncommon.
The OC can also resolve when it is considering a special levy to impose that levy in instalments – we have done that before, spreading the payments over a number of periods. You can also delay the payment, for example by providing that it is not payable immediately, but in three months time. However note that the OC can’t enter into a contract for works unless it has the money to pay the contract price.
I don’t agree with you that there should be a cap on levies – unfortunately that is what you sign up for when you buy into a strata scheme. The owners have an obligation to repair and maintain a building, and if a large amount of money is required then they have to raise it.
I am baffled as to why the owner is being paid money for “inconvenience”. In some circumstances where an owner can prove a financial loss or cost incurred due to works etc., it may be appropriate that the OC pay an amount (there have been cases where an owner has been awarded financial compensation, those cases are generally pretty extreme).
However – the owner has to prove that they have or will suffer a financial loss or incurred a cost. Inconvenience of itself is not compensable. For example, if the repairs are confined to the balcony and the owner can use the rest of their apartment, then why should they be paid compensation?
I am about to have several of the ceilings replaced in my apartment, which is being paid for by insurance held by the OC. I am not claiming money from the OC for the inconvenience to me in having the work done (which is considerable), I just want the work done.
The EC is spending the Owners Corporation’s money. It is not their money. They have a duty to spend that money appropriately.
This leads on to the next question which has already been asked – if the balcony is not common property why is the OC paying for the repairs to it? If it is the case that the balcony is the owner’s property, the OC is not liable for the repairs, and they certainly shouldn’t be paying any money for a vague concept of inconvenience.
If it were me I would be making an application for an order to stop the OC proceeding with the works or any payment to the owner.
I don’t know where to start with this, what a mess. A few comments:
– when the special levy was approved at the General Meeting, did the owners also approve entering into the contract for the remedial works?
– does the notice of meeting for the variations include approval of those variations, and not just the raising of the special levy?
If not, the special levy will be approved but not the entering into the contract.
If I were you I would be putting in an urgent application for appointment of a managing agent, on the basis that the scheme is dysfunctional.