Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
For a start, if the bird mites are as a result of something (or something wrong with) the common property, then you are not responsible for half the cost, the owners corporation is responsible for all of the cost. So I suggest that in any correspondence you make it clear that you are not paying for any of it.
If there is a genuine concern re mites or bugs or whatever infesting a lot because of a flaw in the common property, then the OC has to deal with it as a priority, not least of all because it is affecting the health and safety of residents. If it is affecting your tenants there is also a concern that you could lose them, with consequential loss of rent.
Write to the OC and say that you raised this in January and to date there has been no response, and that their failure to act may have a detrimental effect on the health and safety of residents. Unless they take action you will make an application to NCAT for an order for the work to be carried out.
Incidentally another thing you might want to think about is getting a pest controller in to inspect the gutters and give his opinion about how to deal with it.
The reports you have, most specifically from the engineers, do not state that any repairs are required to the balustrades.
[note that an expert will never say something is “safe” because that would leave them open to liability]
From what you have said, it seems that some people want to upgrade the balustrades. That is not a repair. Bringing up to current standards when there is nothing inherently wrong with the balustrades is not a repair, it is an upgrade. Look at it another way – what is being repaired?
If the owners want to upgrade the balustrades then that will require a special resolution.
The strata manager should also be told that they should not be giving advice in relation to liability unless they have a sound basis for doing so.
If you ultimately want to have the fence demolished, then not saying anything about it until some later date is not going to help your case. As Whale has pointed out, doing things on a wink and a nod can have very bad consequences down the line.
Going back to your original post, the DOFT is correct, the land is not theirs but in giving them permission to build the fence you have effectively given them control of that land, and a bigger backyard, for nothing. A subsequent purchaser of your lot (or theirs for that matter) might not be very happy about that.
The reason why a subsequent purchaser of their lot might not be happy is because while the fence is there they have appropriated common property with nothing legal to back it up, and if I were looking at buying the lot that would be an issue.
I appreciate you don’t want things to descend into warfare, but you need to sort it out, both the parking issue and the bigger issue of the fence.
No you’re not covered by strata insurance, so far as it relates to fixing faulty/defective building work.
However if your builder went into liquidation then you should be able to claim to fix the faulty roof under Home Warranty Insurance. It isn’t clear if you have already done a claim under that for the other issues, but the OC has an obligation to fix something that is defective. If they are covered by HWI then they had better get their skates on as time is running – I get very confused re how long you have but in your case it might be 6 years.
As I said, regardless, the roof has to be fixed now the OC is aware of it. Otherwise as has been pointed out you could find yourself in a position where the strata insurer refuses to pay for damage as a result of it.
It’s the Owners Corporation – they are the party responsible under the Act. So any application for an order is in respect of them.
(the EC and manager are essentially the OC’s agents)
Your rights are against your landlord. Similarly, if there is an issue with the flat that means work has to be carried out, the strata manager should be dealing with the landlord (or their agent) at first instance. Unless you are authorised to act as the landlord’s agent for those purposes, you shouldn’t be agreeing to anything (apologies if you are authorised).
What you should be doing is contacting your landlord/their agent and telling them what is going on. As a tenant you have a right to a bathroom, so presuming the work goes ahead and you don’t have a bathroom, the landlord has to make arrangements to deal with that, either by finding you alternative accommodation and/or taking account of it in your rent. If the bathroom has been in an unacceptable state for that long, then the landlord has to do something about it, which may involve a number of things.
I am not sure why you say you don’t want to go to the landlord re a rent reduction – your primary relationship is with them, that is why you pay rent to them. They have to sort it out with the OC, not you. You are right that the OC has to pay for repairs to the common property, but that’s not your problem!
No of course you don’t have to supply someone else with electricity, either legally or in any other way.
Your reasons are irrelevant – just say no, you don’t wish to do so.
So 8 out of 10 of the owners with aprons are now using common property as parking space, so they can use their garages for storage, even though permission was granted to park “from time to time”?
From the information given the owners are using common property which has a value, for a use that has value. When the exclusive use by-law was proposed, did they propose a payment to the owners corporation for the exclusive use, and if so was this backed by a valuation?
Although the common property is in front of the respective garages at present it belongs to all the owners – you can’t just take that away from them without accounting for its value.
Yes of course the owners could apply for a ruling, but if they have not proposed compensating the owners corporation for taking over part of the common property, then I doubt the application would be successful.
KP that is not correct. If someone undertakes unauthorised works or additions that affect common property, and there is no special by-law, and then the lot is sold to someone else, the OC is stuck with it. Refer both my and Whale’s previous posts.
If an OC took it upon themselves to rip out an air conditioning unit that serviced a lot on the basis that it was an unauthorised addition by a previous owner, they would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. The same applies to an addition that needs servicing – if there is no by-law specifying that it is the responsibility of an owner, then the OC has to do it.
Even where someone does unauthorised works and they are still there, the OC can’t just wade in and remove them. We are in that position at present with an owner who seems to find it amusing to ignore numerous notices to him telling him not to do that kind of thing, and just keeps doing it. If the owner refuses to consent to a by-law then the only option is for the OC to seek an order for one, or in the alternative an order permitting removal of the works.
Yes it is messy, but that is the way the law works in NSW. That is why, as Whale points out, it pays to be vigilant.
As a general comment it is a very unintelligent idea. For example, if the EC were considering legal advice re some dispute or whatever, posting it for all the world to see would mean that they would lose any privilege in relation to that advice.
Similarly I don’t think it would take long until someone claimed they were being defamed, because EC/OC papers mentioned that they may have breached a by-law.
That kind of thing should be provided to owners only.
That isn’t correct KP, at least in NSW. If an owner does works affecting common property and doesn’t get permission, unless the OC acts to require an exclusive use by-law (or possibly removal), the works (or whatever it is) become the responsibility of the owners corporation.
Yes teamwalrus you are right – a purchaser without notice would quite rightly object if they bought an apartment with air conditioning, and then the OC said sorry you can’t have it any more. I wouldn’t like to be the OC in that kind of situation. That is why it is so important to make it clear who is responsible for what.
In the case of a TV aerial what I am saying is that generally it is a reasonable expectation that residents will get TV reception. How the OC provides that is up to them, so if they want to take the old aerial away and replace it somewhere else fine, as long as the resident has TV reception.
If there is no exclusive use by- law making the owner responsible then it is the OC’s responsibility. If the person who did it has gone, then you can’t require a by- law so you’re stuck with it.
A TV aerial is slightly different – someone may have put it there, but generally I believe the OC has to provide that sort of amenity. How they provide it is up to them.
Solar panels and air conditioning would be OC responsibility unless they passed a resolution not to replace or repair it, but I think that resolution has to be unanimous.
In the corporate world there has been a shift to calling general meetings that are not annual general meetings simply “General Meetings”. That is what they are, general meetings that aren’t annual general meetings.
Unfortunately the Act uses the term “extraordinary” so we are stuck with it.
You’re welcome!
You know some of us have moderation access, so that is how I replied.
Yes there is – if you have the numbers.
The number of people on the EC has to be determined by resolution of the owners at the AGM. When that resolution comes up, propose a number that will keep her off the Committee. That is, if you and 2 other people want to be on the Committee, and she is the only other person, then propose that the number is 3. You then have an election to fill the spots and presuming she doesn’t get the votes you are fine.
As I say you can only do this if you have the numbers. Otherwise you may have to talk to her friend and the new owner.