Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
There are a number of hypotheticals there. For example, has the OC resolved to demolish the building (quite a few hurdles to get through for that)?
If the building is uninhabitable, are people living in it? If there are known safety issues and they haven’t been rectified, then the OC would likely be liable for any injuries or other losses caused as a result of the issues. It would not be a defence that you intend or propose to demolish the building. This is a separate issue to the OC’s obligations under the Act to maintain the building.
flossyb – you don’t need a strata lawyer. The effect of the decision is that a blanket ban on keeping of animals is harsh, unreasonable, oppressive etc. – therefore any by-law that bans the keeping of animals outright has no force. Because it is a Court ruling there is no time when it takes effect, the Court has ruled.
This does not prevent a strata scheme having the standard by-law which provides that an owner may keep an animal with the consent of the OC, and that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The by-laws can also impose conditions on the keeping of an animal. So you may still need to seek approval.
Luke – no, a ban on fish or birds, would fall into the same category, i.e. harsh, unreasonable, oppressive. However there may be specific instances where an OC has a good reason to refuse permission to keep a certain type of animal.
I’m assuming you are in NSW. On the basis of the information you have provided I believe it is an OC responsibility.
If the OC is applying waterproofing to the wall to deal with a moisture issue, it seems from what you say that the moisture issue is an OC responsibility. The only reason you are applying waterproofing is because of the moisture issue, and for that reason you can’t equate it with painting.
I suggest that the OC get some further advice regarding water penetration, its possible source and any risk to the stability of that wall. If it doesn’t it could be in for a world of pain in the future.
No – you can be a member of the Committee and have a dispute with the OC, no issues there!!!
Given it is common property I am not sure you are even obliged to agree to a request to instal the solar panels, there has been a case on this in Queensland where an owner was required to either move or remove solar panels. Even if you are, because it is common property it is reasonable for the Committee/OC to impose any conditions it believes are necessary to ensure the interests of the other owners are preserved. So your approach is correct.
I suggest you contact a solar panel provider who specialises in strata to advise, strata solar is a complex area.
Yes it is – we have 9 lots and have in the past had 9 members on the Committee. To be honest I can’t see the point, it means that every time you have a Committee meeting you are effectively having a general meeting. A Committee of 9 in a 9 lot building is overkill.
If you are concerned about transparency then perhaps you need to think about why the Committee has had issues with complying with the law – giving notice and providing minutes of Committee meetings are both requirements under the Act.
Yes the OP doesn’t say whether it is a Committee or general meeting – regardless, a Committee doesn’t have the power to make a decision like that.
The Vexatious Litigants Act doesn’t apply here. As for requiring a seconder for a motion, that won’t fly. An owner is entitled to put a motion forward, there is no requirement in the Act for a seconder, and nor should there be. The Chair doesn’t decide what goes on the agenda – bear in mind that the agenda for a general meeting must be sent to owners a certain amount of time before the meeting.
A wholesale change of the style of windows would require a special resolution of the owners at a general meeting as a change to the common property. Perhaps the pesky owner needs to be told that. In addition I would be telling him that he could put the motion up, provided he includes a full scope of the proposal, including the design of the proposed windows, the budget and how he proposes to pay for it.
You do have the right not to include a motion in an agenda that is not complete, so unless it meets those criteria, don’t include it.
You can find the biller for a BPay code on the BPay website. Just put in the code and it will tell you who the biller is, or was.
However, if your previous management company was taken over by your current management company, that suggests that the previous company no longer exists, or has been absorbed into the current management company. If you used the old biller code then it should have either been rejected or it has been received by the current company in some way or another. I suggest you call the current management company and ask them.
If you mean can the owners in a scheme force the sale of an individual unit by a special resolution – the answer is no.
The provisions relating to special resolutions approving the collective sale of a scheme apply to a scheme as a whole – that is, all of the lots and the common property. Note that for a scheme registered before November 2016, the owners first have to opt in to that framework by a vote of 50% or more.
Essentially the owners in a scheme can’t force an owner to sell their apartment, whether by special resolution or otherwise. That would be a fundamental erosion of property rights.
Call the Council.
I suggest you and the other concerned owners write a letter to the Committee and the strata manager setting out your concerns, including what you believe is the improper removal of the palm trees from the common property.
You should then state that any changes and work of this kind must be approved through the appropriate processes, which may include the approval of the owners in a general meeting. You request immediate confirmation that these processes will be followed and until this occurs any further work will cease.
It is odd that they removed what sound like mature palm trees without any Council approval.
I take it this post is the same issue as outlined in your other post titled Garden Work. It would be better if you had put your queries in one post. There are a number of elements missing in this post which are relevant, including that the garden works are well advanced. Conversely, there are elements missing in the other post which are relevant. It is not easy to give advice without all the facts.
As Jimmy outlined in his first response, an option was to apply for an interim order to prevent the removal of plants and trees until the matter was resolved. It seems this is no longer viable.
You don’t say what was there before, so it is difficult to say. For example if a concrete area was being ripped up and replace with garden beds then I think there is an argument it is a change of common property. If it is an existing garden area that is being fixed up, that’s a harder call.
As Kaindub says, if the work is well underway what are you hoping to achieve? Did you want them to reverse the work that has been done, incurring more expense? This is bearing in mind they can’t put back the tree?
If you ask for approval of minor renovations inside your lot, and the renovations don’t affect anyone and don’t have any implications for the common property, and the Committee refuses your request, then as a general guide, that refusal is likely to be considered unreasonable. If the Committee refuses the request because they don’t like you, that is unreasonable. If the Committee refuses the request and they approved a very similar request a short time ago, then that is unreasonable.
When you think about what might constitute unreasonable it can be useful to turn it around and think about what is reasonable, i.e. what might be a good reason for refusing something. If it doesn’t fit into that category it is likely to be unreasonable.
The fact that someone is an investor or operates an Air BnB out of their property doesn’t mean they have a conflict of interest. They may have a particular reason for wanting to remove the trees and plants that aligns with their interests, all owners have an interest in the outcome of a decision, but that doesn’t mean they have a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest is where someone has a material personal interest in the outcome of something – for example if an OC was looking at engaging a contractor and an owner had a financial interest in the contractor, then they should recuse themselves from any decision in that regard because the two interests conflict.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathise with you, I like gardens. But if you want to have a chance of success make sure you have a solid argument.