Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
PeterC is right. The balcony has been approved and there is a by-law that reflects that. These people need to back off and stop hassling you. You have no concerns other than their false claims. In that respect if it continues you may have to tell them that you reserve your rights in relation to actions that may devalue your property.
I believe in those circumstances when the adjourned meeting is held you can move a motion that the other person be chair of the meeting.
What are you talking about murphy99, Strata Agents have to be licensed under the Property Stock and Business Agents Act. They are required to operate trust accounts.
There are bad agents – I know, I have gotten rid of three. However, neither of them stole money from us, not even the one who is currently in prison. You will find bad practice everywhere, that is why it is important to be viglilant.
No the EC can’t quietly borrow money. If the OC wants to borrow money it requires approval at a general meeting.
You have the right to know what the EC is planning and doing – they are required to give notice of meetings with an agenda of items being considered. You can attend those meetings. If they are not giving notice ask why and remind them of their obligations.
Another thing – if the original approval provided for review in 5 years, then unless it specifically provided otherwise then only the OC in an AGM can review it. The EC wouldn’t have the power.
It would be interesting to see what the by-law says.
And the EC member running the laundry should be excluded from any EC consideration of the matter as they have a material personal interest.
Fine then – put it to the AGM and have it confirmed that that is what the majority wants.
Personally I would not want pot plants in our foyer, but that’s our foyer.
You need to have a basis to claim, and that would involve taking legal action against the strata manager.
KP the identification of the boundary fence as common property is for the purposes of the Strata Schemes Management Act and means that no owner within the scheme is responsible for it.
The Dividing Fences Act is a separate matter and the strata legislation doesn’t determine responsibility for those purposes. It just means that it is the OC who has to serve the notice and take the action.
This is covered by the Dividing Fences Act – you need to serve a notice and if nothing works you go to mediation and then NCAT.
Refer here.
https://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/neighbours/fences.html
The OC may be covered by insurance in some circumstances.
How do you get a bad back from a door slamming?
I don’t think it is a court matter, i.e. something heard by a judge. A tribunal or Commissioner maybe. But bear in mind that if the person is a tenant their action is primarily against the landlord.
The question you should be asking is – given our duties under the Act and to the owners as a whole, how do we balance these against the (unreasonable) demands of one resident/tenant?
I also agree with Stevecro, otherwise there is no point in having a notice and agenda. As a general matter of the laws of meetings, you can’t have a resolution/decision unless it is on the agenda (note this can vary depending on the circumstances, for example you may have to make a decision on something in an emergency, or at late notice).
Here the owners have an interest in the purported resolution. Of more concern is that the meeting was said to be closed and the EC then “made” the decision after that – it seems to be very deliberate. I would be writing a letter to the EC asking them why they did that.
I also agree with Whale – the relevant provision is section 65A of the Act, the owner has altered/added to common property and require approval or should be compelled to remove it.
That is an odd one, I agree with Whale.
Looking at it generally and this is not legal advice. I am assuming this person is a tenant rather than an owner.
Discrimination is where someone is treated unfairly because they belong to a particular group of people or have a particular characteristic, e.g. a disability. In this case lets assume this person is claiming discrimination because they have an allergy or allergies. It’s not clear if this person has provided proof of their allergies.
In NSW discrimination law applies in five different areas – employment, goods and services, education, accommodation and registered clubs. Obvious examples are where someone is dismissed from employment because of a disability, or someone is refused accommodation (rental) because of their race. The only category this could fit in is provision of goods and services. I don’t see how the OC is providing this person with goods and services, the landlord is. I
Human rights are a fuzzier concept and include basic rights such as equality before the law, the right to social security and education etc.
The question is either – how is this person being discriminated against, and/or what human right would be infringed by the OC doing what it is required to do to ensure the building is maintained and the basic comfort and health of the residents is assured?
Equally – what is the appropriate balance between the needs and particular disabilities of one person, and the needs of a wider community? Flowing from that – the OC is required to meet the requirements of the Act and manage the property, and take all reasonable steps in this regard. It is not unreasonable for example, if the OC identifies that the building has termites, to take steps to eradicate them. This would necessitate the use of chemicals etc. I don’t think that anyone would say that a building should just be left to be eaten by termites because one resident has a sensitivity.
It would not be unreasonable for the OC to paint the common areas if they needed to be painted, provided appropriate notice were given, and anyone who may be affected by that activity was able to vacate while that was going on. If that person was so sensitive that they could not tolerate the paint on an ongoing basis, I don’t believe that anyone would say that the wider community has to bear the burden, as opposed to the relevant person. That is – while it is unfortunate – that person has to adjust their circumstances (which may include moving out) rather than the other way around.
Call their bluff – if I were on the EC I would just go ahead and progress whatever needs to be done, while meeting all necessary requirements such as notification that you must give if you are doing something such as pest treatment. That way you can bring it to a head and resolve the issue. It sounds like the person may be unstable, and you say that they have been harassing other residents. That in itself is a breach of the law and complaints could be made about that. I am not sure why the EC is so scared of this person, but you generally find that once claims like this are tested, the resolution can be remarkably straightforward.
I don’t know about vibrations but the lease term states you must have the property fumigated – you have done that and therefore you have no further obligations.
You didn’t have to pay for a second fumigation, just one.
Thank you Whale for your kind thoughts, your wise counsel is much valued – I hope 2015 brings peace and harmony for all, and conversely some more interesting issues!
And of course thank you Jimmy for all your hard work!