Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I agree with a number of points of view expressed here, some of which are conflicting, but for what it’s worth:
– so far as anonymity goes, e.g. putting up an anonymous website criticising people, I believe that goes to the credibility of the person criticising, and I would discount anything under an anonymous profile. If you really believe in what you are posting, you should stand by it and identify yourself. If you don’t, you are opening yourself up to attack and weakening your position.
– before anyone starts throwing around privacy considerations, they should first read the Privacy Act so they are clear about what is private and the controls put on personal information, including what is personal information, and who the Privacy Act applies to (government organisations, large organisations, private health service providers and some small businesses). We give our email addresses to all sorts of people and organisations on a regular basis, sometimes there are inherent controls on how the address can be used, sometimes there aren’t.
– the names and addresses of lot owners are not private, any other owner has the right to access the strata roll and obtain the information on it (assuming someone’s real address is on the roll, because it may not be). The same applies to public listed companies, where under the Corporations Act a person is entitled to a copy of the register, subject to certain limits and controls re how that information is used.
– phone numbers and email addresses are a bit trickier. It can depend on whether that information has been provided (it doesn’t have to be) and any conditions that attach to that provision. So, I might provide my email address to the strata manager and tell him that he is not allowed to give that email address to anyone else without my permission, that it can only be used for a particular purpose, or simply that he can’t provide it to anyone.
Quite recently an owner in our scheme demanded the phone and email addresses of the other owners. I told the strata manager that on no account was he to provide mine, because I don’t wish to be harassed by that person. I have no obligation to give my phone number or email address to any other owner, I may do so, but if I do I will be clear regarding how they are to be used.
The person controls how the email address is to be used, not the OC. Any right of action in relation to use of the email address lies with the owner of the email address. For example, if you get an unsolicited email you have a number of options including telling the sender that they are not to send you any emails, and if they continue to do so you will report them to their internet service provider. If you receive threatening phone calls you can contact the police.
– I don’t think an EC can say things like we won’t tell you who is standing for the EC, that’s not private. That is just being precious. If they are using contact details for campaigning, perhaps you need to ask them whether they have obtained permission from the people to whom they are sending the emails, or whether they believe that what they are doing is within the ambit of OC business. They can’t have it both ways.
If a person is requesting exclusive use of common property, which would require an exclusive use by-law, yes, the information given on the DOFT website is incorrect. An exclusive use by-law requires a special resolution at a general meeting.
The DOFT gives ok general advice, its website is useful, but you shouldn’t rely on general advice given on that website when applying it to specific circumstances. Also in my own experience advice given by staff there is sometimes wrong.
Yes I think so. Are you on the EC?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with an OC reaching an agreement with someone to use part of the common property and charging for it. In a lot of scenarios it makes sense and everyone benefits.
On the subject of who owns the common property, there is a very fine distinction. The individual owners don’t own it, the Owners Corporation (a legal entity) owns it and effectively holds it on trust for the benefit of the owners as a whole. While this may seem like splitting hairs it does make a difference. We had someone who moved in a while ago who started demanding to be allocated various bits of the common property for his use, stating that it was communal property and he had a right to use it in that way. We had to tell him that that was not the way it worked. As he wanted to be given exclusive use of a part of the common property that was used as a thoroughfare by everyone else, we said no.
It’s not clear from what you have said, but in relation to a vote at the EC, unless it was on the agenda there couldn’t be a vote. It is a bit confusing because you have said you wrote to them, in which case there may have been something on the agenda, but even if there was, it would have had to have been pretty clear, i.e. a resolution to permit you to do what you want to do. The EC cannot vote on something that is not on the agenda. It is up to you to send a resolution to the EC secretary for inclusion on the agenda. If you did that and it wasn’t included in the agenda, that is a separate issue.
Setting that aside I am not sure that the EC would have the power to resolve to grant you that permission, because effectively you are asking to be granted exclusive use of a part of the common property, and that is a matter for the OC to consider at a general meeting.
I agree with Whale, the last thing I would want to see in the foyer/common property is a collection of bikes, joined by prams and car seats, then followed by whatever other stuff people don’t want to store somewhere else. By the way I don’t have anything against bicycles.
My next door neighbour has a bike, she keeps it in her apartment – we are on the second floor. Not all of the lots here have carspaces but I still don’t think the foyer is the place to be keeping stuff like that.
Photovoltaic system?
The short answer to that is no, it is not illegal to take photos of cars. I won’t go into detail but why would it be, is the photographer invading the car’s privacy? Bear in mind that the property is not a public space, but the person taking the photo is entitled to be there. The issue centres more around the use of the photo.
The easiest way to deal with someone like that is to ask them for the specific legislation to which they are referring, i.e. what legislation provides that taking photos of a car is illegal, and also the section of that legislation. If they want, they can also ask if it is a civil or criminal offence.
Well yes, name calling and references to fascist dictators is not necessary, whatever the context. However, you are encroaching on common property. I don’t know the circumstances of the property so it isn’t possible to make a call as to whether that is a concern or not, but generally I would say that I would have concerns, for a number of reasons.
You mention in your other post that there is a by-law providing that 2 cars can be parked in the space. Without knowing the background to the by-law, that is the by-law. From what you say, it is not possible to park 3 cars in the space without encroaching on common property so the basis of the by-law doesn’t seem unreasonable. If it was put in before you bought the property, you bought the property on that basis. As it is, you are using part of the common property to enable you to park 3 cars, where the by-law says 2 cars. That use has value – i.e., the value of a 3 car parking space would be significantly more than a 2 car parking space. So you may not be hurting someone, but you are using common property and that is of benefit to you. Similar considerations apply if someone decides to store possessions on common property, they are using space that doesn’t belong to them for their personal use.
I don’t really see the logic of saying if written permission were given there would be no contravention, it is up to the OC/EC as to whether permission is given, and if it isn’t then there is a contravention.
Yes, sadly the media et al are not really interested in good news stories and it is true that people are more likely to post here when they have a problem.
However, I couldn’t agree more. I have been here ten years and many of those were very difficult, I found it very stressful and wondered if I should leave. But there are now at least five out of 9 of us who get along very well, value the building and the community we have, and want to work together to make it even better. We often help each other out. There are two who are problems, and I don’t think they will ever change, but at least we have some sort of majority consensus and I value the relationships I have here.
Having a lock on a door is not obstruction or hindrance, it’s just normal. Cosmo is right. Re having a non-approved lock – that would be relevant if there were a fire.
My other half left the bath running which resulted in a flood, and water pouring through the downstairs ceiling. The neighbour called the fire brigade who broke the door down, we thought that was fair enough in the circumstances.
The answer to the question lies with the cause of the flood. So what caused the flood? However, the neighbour doesn’t owe you any duty of care.
The. SMH reported last week on the fabulous proceedings of the Calabria Community Club AGM where an all-out brawl broke out, complete with chair hurling, so it’s not limited to strata!
We had the misfortune to have to attend a mediation where the other party brought along two lawyers, so we had to bring one too. That was a complete waste of time and money. It wasn’t covered by insurance.
It is difficult to answer your question without knowing what the mediation was about. Usually insurance doesn’t cover general legal costs, but it does cover specific instances including office bearers’ liability and OHS claims. As Jimmy said, an insurer may make a smaller one-off payment, but that can contribute to higher premiums.
There should be something in the EC minutes re the mediation, as the EC has to resolve to attend the mediation and those attending have to be authorised to agree to whatever is agreed there.
I am not so sure reimbursement of legal costs would be accounted for as revenue.
My primary concern was that a notice to comply under section 45 refers to a breach of a by-law.
An adjudicator does deal with breaches of the Act, in which case the OC can make an application, they don’t have to issue a notice to comply. Examples of that would include an owner breaching sections 116 or 117 re interfering with the structure of a lot or creating a nuisance.
In the case of someone causing havoc at meetings, you then have to look at the powers of an adjudicator under Part 4 and I am not so sure they extend to this sort of scenario. As I have said elsewhere, there is no law against someone being a pain in the neck.
In the context of meetings, it is up to the Chair to run the meeting – if someone is being disruptive then the Chair should issue a warning, and if the person ignores it they should be removed. I know in real life this is not always workable.
Yes I know what you are getting at, but I think it is drawing a pretty long bow in terms of breach of the Act. Re “holding meetings in accordance with the Act”, I believe that would be more along the lines of an OC failing to hold meetings, failing to follow procedures for meetings, or resolutions being improperly dealt with etc.
Where someone turns up and talks at a meeting despite being told not to, the CTTT is going to ask where was the harm, while balancing the rights of owners to have their say.