Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Make sure you take photos of the damage etc. so there is no chance of them disputing it.
Setting aside whether the balcony is part of the lot or common property, the issue is whether there is a defect in the common property which is causing the problem. On the face of it, it sounds like there may be.
The Owners Corporation is responsible for remedying any defects in the common property. It doesn’t matter whether it is an improvement to common property, if there is a defect they have to fix it.
I suggest you find a structural engineer who can give you a preliminary opinon on the cause/s of the water penetration, including whether it is defects in the common property that are the cause or part of the cause, and how they can be addressed. Once you have that, you should approach the OC and ask them how and when they are going to fulfil their obligations.
Television reception is a basic amenity, like a phone line. If there is no television reception, or unsatisfactory television reception, then the Owners Corporation has an obligation to provide it/fix the problem. It doesn’t matter if some owners don’t want it, if an owner made an application to the CTTT, I believe that the OC would be required to do it.
In terms of digital television, if a strata scheme has not upgraded their antenna to receive digital signals, then they should do that prior to the analogue system being turned off.
In the case of Foxtel, if certain owners want it, then they can pay for installation to their lots.
It depends on whether the tiles are the property of the unit owner or common property, the strata plan should tell you – if they are not common property it would be noted on the plan. It can vary from strata scheme to strata scheme. If they are common property, then the obligation is on the OC to fix them, but if you ever wanted to change them you would have to get permission.
That is assuming they are the original tiles – if an owner has subsequently changed them then usually they become the responsibility of the owner.
In the case of a villa I would expect the tiles to be the owner’s responsibility but I could be wrong.
Check with the strata manager or have a look at the strata plan.
You would usually need council approval to change windows. So the owner should have drawn up plans, put them to the OC for approval, and had them stamped with the common seal to lodge with the council to get a DA. Obviously as common property this would have had to be approved at a general meeting. Yes you would need a by-law to make it clear that the owner had ongoing responsibility for the windows.
So aside from anything else there is likely to be a breach of council requirements. The OC should also ask the owner about that, because if council approval hasn’t been obtained the council can require it to be changed.
Although the strata manager is no longer there, the onus is on the owner to satisfy the OC that the requisite approvals were obtained, and from the facts it seems they weren’t.
I’m more worried that Sleepyhead seems to only have one pair of pyjamas (unless she has multiple pairs of the same). Personally I think it is a good idea to get dressed every day but that is a personal choice.
Seriously – query what is inappropriate, if you were wandering around in a g-string and nothing else, yes that may be inappropriate. In the absence of a by-law setting out specifically what is appropriate, they don’t have a leg to stand on. There is a very funny case on this, about a community in Tweed Heads.
The OC can’t fine you, they would have to take you to the CTTT to do that. They also don’t have the power to evict you, your contract is with the landlord and I doubt they would do that.
No, it applies to all motions and I am surprised that ACT legislation allows for certain types to be moved without notice, which is effectively what that is. That cuts across the general law of meetings. How can someone put in a directed proxy if they don’t have notice of a motion/resolution?
No – you can’t add items to the agenda once the notice of meeting has been sent out.
The Act provides a mechanism for putting motions on the agenda for the AGM. If you want to have motions put on the agenda, send them to the strata manager and cc the secretary of the Executive Committee, and tell them you are doing this in accordance with the Act.
You have some idea when the meeting will be held, so make sure you send them about six weeks prior.
Re the EC being uncommunicative, they are required to give 72 hours notice of any EC meetings and you are entitled to attend those meetings. If they are not giving notice of the EC meetings you should ask why. If they are not providing minutes of the EC meetings you can also ask for those.
Yes you can, and a lot of people do. There was an article about this in the SMH last week.
https://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/upwardly-mobile-20120518-1yu6i.html
The process is not simple and involves getting the approval of the owners corporation who would have to agree to an exclusive use by-law giving you use of that space because it is common property, i.e. it is owned by all the owners. Amongst other things the by-law would make it clear that you were responsible for the ongoing maintenance of that space. You would also have to pay for having exclusive use and that would be calculated by taking the cost of converting the roof space and deducting that from the assessed value of the space once it had been converted. For example if you paid $50,000 for conversion and the assessed value of the space were $100,000 then you would pay the OC $50,000. You would also have to pay to have the by-law drafted and registered.
From the point of view of most OCs they are unlikely to object to space being used that no-one else can use, provided they are satisfied that engineering requirements are met, the common property isn’t damaged etc.
You would have to draw up detailed plans, get engineer advice and put in a DA to the Council which would require approval of the OC before lodgement. A major consideration is whether it is worth the costs relative to the increased value of the apartment.
Reasonableness is an objective test, taking into account the circumstances of any given situation. There are lots of cases on whether a decision is reasonable or unreasonable, in strata the most obvious being the keeping of pets. What is reasonable will change depending on each situation.
The problem with including a list of what is reasonable is you are not allowing for any discretion and leaving yourself open to challenge. It is far better to be silent on what may be considered reasonable, and deal with each case on its merits. The other thing is the example by-law puts the onus on the person to seek approval, and has consequences where they don’t, which is what you want.
It’s a good by-law, the only thing I would add to it is a timeframe for responding to a request.
OP means Original Poster.
Otherwise Jimmy and FlatChatFan are right, if you live in an apartment building you need to take that into account when you are planning to do something that may cause a racket. The key consideration is reasonableness, i.e. what is reasonable – and that is something that needs to be considered by both parties. Provided someone plans a renovation properly, gives notice to all the residents and keeps any noise between certain hours, it would be unreasonable for the residents to prevent those renovations occurring.
In this case I would be asking if the downstairs neighbour has sought approval for his renovations, if he hasn’t then you may be able to stop him, depending on what he is doing. It is a standard condition of OC approval of renovations that work only be carried out on certain days between certain hours.
That’s a different issue – what that means is where there is a mediation, the parties attending must have the authority to agree to any settlement/terms that are agreed.
If someone applies for a mediation the other party can decline to attend. Refer here:
The mediation step is because you can’t apply to the CTTT for an adjudication unless you have done that. The way it works is you apply for mediation, the mediation occurs or does not occur (if the other party declines to attend), if no resolution is reached then you can apply for adjudication. The advice given to you by the OFT was correct to that extent.
So now you can go ahead and apply for adjudication, you just need to attach evidence that you did the mediation step which I believe is the advice that the other party declined and the file has been closed.
Your problem is with the vendor rather than the strata manager, as it appears you bought two things – the apartment and the carspace lease. The vendor should have provided you with everything you needed to effect the transfer of the lease into your name at the same time as the apartment was transferred. If they have not done that, presuming you have paid the vendor, then you should pursue them for specific perfomance of the contract.
I suggest you speak to the person who handled the settlement of the property as a matter of priority. You may need to seek legal advice.
The renovations sound reasonably extensive, specifically in relation to the relocation of the laundry. Did you apply for and receive OC approval of the renovations prior to doing them? There is a standard condition which can/should be included in any approval of renovations which provides that the lot owner must ensure that the work is carried out in a professional manner and is responsible for ongoing maintenance and future maintenance of those works. This encompasses the works specified in the approval.
The reasons for that are obvious – you have done the works/improvements – therefore you should be responsible for them. The OC has no control over those works so it wouldn’t really be fair for an owner to then come back and claim that shoddy work done on behalf of an owner by a third party is the responsibility of the OC.
Couple of examples:
– you renovate the bathroom which includes installation of waterproofing membranes which subsequently fail. That is between you and the builder/plumber who installed the membrane, the OC hasn’t been a party to that.
– an owner removes an internal wall which is a retaining wall without OC approval and does not put in a supporting beam. If a subsequent owner comes along and determines that a beam is necessary, why should the OC be required to fix it, in circumstances where it didn’t even know? (this actually happened to me, so I got someone in to put in a supporting beam)
Note in relation to tiles that these are only common property if the by-laws specifically state that they are.
In relation to the 7 year building warranty – this doesn’t really mean anything once the warranty has expired. If the by-law were to fall away after 7 years then the OC would be responsible, the point is that you should be responsible for works that you have undertaken, as distinct from works that the OC has undertaken.
Note that if you don’t agree to the by-law the OC could make an application to the CTTT for an order that the by-law be made.
There is another way around it which is probably easier. The EC has to have a meeting and make a decision to proceed with the work. To have an EC meeting they are obliged to give notice of the meeting to all owners and include the proposal in the agenda.
Schedule 3 of the Strata Schemes Management Act (refer below, para 2) provides that if owners holding 1/3 of the aggregate unit entitlements give notice in writing to the secretary of the EC that they object to the making of a specific decision then that decision has no force or effect.
Assuming that you have at least 1/3 of the aggregate unit entitlements then you can serve notice to that effect. Note that if they don’t give proper notice of the meeting with an agenda etc., then you could probably challenge the decision on those grounds anyway.
If you are concerned in relation to the admin fund and financial management generally you may want to consider putting up a motion at your next AGM limiting the decisions that the EC can make, i.e. to a certain amount of money.
11 Decisions of executive committee
…
(2) A decision of an executive committee has no force or effect if, before that decision is made, notice in writing is given to the secretary of the executive committee by one or more owners, the sum of whose unit entitlements exceeds one-third of the aggregate unit entitlement, that the making of the decision is opposed by those owners.