Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Yes there is. Contact your local Council immediately.
I’m wondering how you know he was still snoring when you moved out Daphne, did he ever wake up?n
No – refer my answer re section 117. You can also pressure the strata manager to take action, if is causing a nuisance. It sounds like it is.
Maybe no-one should ever go outside Daphne?
To answer your question CharlieBoots, the current laws and regulations haven’t changed.
Refer here re the proposed model by-law, which I believe may have been shelved.
But there is nothing stopping you putting up a by-law like that to the OC for approval.
Refer also here:
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Case-studies1.pdf
The other option is to progress an action on the basis that those owners are causing a nuisance under section 117 of the Act, which was successful in the Highgate case. It is not correct for your strata manager to say there is nothing they can do, so I would suggest that you go back to him/her and tell him you have a legitimate complaint and that you expect to have it taken seriously. If necessary put it in writing.
I had no idea until recently that cats were covered by the Companion Animals Act. You can complain to the Council and ask them to issue an order in relation to the cat, refer section 31 below.
31 Nuisance cats
(1) For the purposes of this section, a cat is a nuisance if the cat:
(a) makes a noise that persistently occurs or continues to such a degree or extent that it unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of any person in any other premises, or
(b) repeatedly damages anything outside the property on which it is ordinarily kept.
(2) If an authorised officer of a council is satisfied that a cat is a nuisance, the officer may, after complying with section 31A, issue an order in the approved form to the owner of the cat requiring the owner to prevent the behaviour that is alleged to constitute the nuisance.
(3) The order must specify the behaviour of the cat that is required to be prevented. The order can specify more than one kind of behaviour.
(4) An order remains in force for 6 months after it is issued.
(5) The owner of a cat must comply with an order issued to the owner under this section and must continue to comply with it while it is in force.
Maximum penalty: 3 penalty units for a first offence or 8 penalty units for a second or subsequent offence.
(6) A council whose authorised officer issues an order under this section must notify the Director-General within 7 days after the order is issued.
(7) An order under this section is final and is not subject to any appeal or review.
I am going to go out on a limb here, but Jimmy and Whale feel free to stomp on me. I don’t usually give this sort of advice.
It sounds like your EC are hopeless and do nothing. That is a whole separate issue.
I would just move the dog in – I don’t think the EC will do anything, and if they do, then they are going to have to explain to all the other owners why their dogs have to go also.
I am sorry about your friend and am sure her (his?) dog will be happy with you, you are very kind to take it in.
Alinka – I am not sure what taking them to NCAT on that issue would achieve.
I think you would be better off determining the status of the mediation and whether or not the time for that has passed. If it hasn’t – get the owners to determine whether or not they want to do mediation and appoint the representatives.
Otherwise – the issue is that the mediator was informed without authority that the OC would not mediate. Perhaps you then need to ask NCAT for a mediation session to be reset.
Gosh this is messy, so just a few thoughts:
– in respect of the two EC members who made the NCAT application that is the subject of mediation, I suggest that they have a conflict of interest so therefore should be excluded from any considerations/decisions relating to the matter. That is – in their capacity as EC members. You are right, the EC members have to act in the interests of the OC as a whole.
– if that is the case, that leaves you with one EC member. That is not a quorum for the purposes of making an EC decision (technically you could argue that it might be but let’s leave that)
– going back to the Secretary advising that they didn’t want to go to mediation – a single member of the EC can’t make a decision on behalf of the EC, they have to meet and make a decision. It seems that didn’t happen. So the Secretary didn’t have the authority to do that.
– the strata manager is wrong, you have to have an EC meeting to make a decision. The requisite 72 hours notice needs to be given, with the proposed resolutions notified to all owners in accordance with the Act.
– the other owners can object to a proposed resolution of an EC, where notice is given of that proposed resolution, by owners who own at least one third of the entitlements giving notice to the EC that they object to the decision. Any purported decision then has no effect.
Of course, here no notice was given, but if it had been, then if you had the numbers then notice of objection could have been given.
In summary – there was no valid decision, I doubt whether two of the EC members could have participated in any “decision”, and given the nature of the matter and the complexities, it should have gone to the OC (all of the owners) for a decision.
To that extent – on one analysis you could say that the advice given by the Secretary has no force, but that may be a moot point – has the time passed for the mediation?
Yes Whale that is what the Act requires, I assumed that valakos was not using an agent. I don’t think any Tribunal would fine someone for not providing the commencement date of a lease!
The basic answer to all this is no they can’t, but it needs to be broken down a bit.
– a member of the EC can’t ask for those kind of details, they don’t have any right to ask for it. They are just a member of the EC. Unless they are authorised to ask, they can’t ask, and anyway most of what they are asking for you are not required to provide (see below).
– if you are an owner and you have people staying there with you on a temporary basis, or someone is looking after it for you, presuming there is nothing in the by-laws, you do not have to provide any information about that to the OC.
– if you are leasing the unit to someone, either all of it or part of it, then you have to notify the strata manager under section 119, within 14 days. But all you have to give them is the name of the lessee. You do not have to give them a copy of the lease.
– I am not sure if there is anything in your by-laws or Council requirements applying to the scheme, but in the absence of that (and assuming there is enough room) there is nothing stopping you having a flatmate.
So – if you can’t find anything in the by-laws, I suggest you tell them to take a flying leap, as politely as possible. Sorry, but this kind of thing really makes my blood boil.
You may also wish to consider advising them that you consider their actions an invasion of your and your friends’/associates’ privacy and your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, and if they do not desist you will have to consider your options.
Assuming that the carpark space forms part of the whole lot, i.e. together with the unit, then what has been said applies.
If the carpark space constituted a separate lot, then it would be relatively easy, as you could simply sell the unit without the carpark. That kind of scenario can be common for buildings with garages.
That is Victorian legislation snowy.
Either way the phone box benefits both lots equally, and presumably the lot entitlements are the same or close to it.
From the other owner’s point of view it isn’t really fair that you have unfettered access and they do not.
Contact your landlord and/ or managing agent – tell them what you have posted here, and that you are entitled not to be harassed and you expect them to take action to stop it.
You don’t own the property, but you are paying rent. The person to whom you are paying rent has an obligation to ensure you can occupy the property without being hassled.
This is not legal advice, but we have had a similar issue, and this is the way it works.
If an owners corporation becomes aware that an owner is using either their lot or part of the common property in breach of regulations, or in an illegal way, or in an unauthorised way, they are then on notice that this is the case.
The question then is whether the OC has a duty to tell the owner not to do it, or take steps to prevent them doing it. This will depend on the circumstances.
In your case, if the OC is aware that there are unapproved modifications affecting the common property that may be a safety risk, and may in fact compromise the safety and/or integrity of the building, then they should take steps to rectify the situation. This may include requiring the owner of relevant lot to reinstate the common property. If they do not, they may be liable (and refer below re insurance).
As regards insurance – as a general rule, where the OC is aware of something like this, it can void their insurance either in whole or in part. A contract of insurance is uberrimae fidei – a contract of utmost good faith. Anything pertinent to that contract must be disclosed. Where the OC becomes aware, they have to disclose it because it is relevant to the contract. If the OC were sued for an injury resulting from the modifications, the insurance company could refuse to pay and then the owners would be personally liable.
You can do the tax return yourselves, it’s not hard.