Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I write as a tenant who is the only person on the lease.
As far as I see, possible outcomes of these reforms are surely – given the many “vulnerable” tenants who may wish to lease a property, the possibility of multiple steps involved in dealing with partial bond refunds and damage to property, where it’s unclear which tenant, when there are two or more – are for landlords
A) to prefer initially ask for higher rents;
B) to choose to lease to a single tenant; and
C) to prefer non “vulnerable” tenants.
DV is a major concern. But expecting landlords to wear any of the burden doesn’t seem just.
Eyeroll, from what I have seen in my strata, I agree 100% with Jimmy’s first point about whether or not there is mention in the strata mgt agreement that pmt by the strata mgr can only follow an instruction by the strata committee or for that matter any person nominated by the strata committee to act in its name.
Separately, the question of whether the progress pmt invoice was justified. The strata mgr should be asked what work by the contractor justified the invoice to be paid?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Apologies for causing offense. That was not the intention. Perhaps what should be considered is to bolster regional centers by requiring or at least encouraging migrants to live there, this will certainly help with documented shortages of doctors nurses and paramedics in many parts of non metropolitan centers. A win-win situation.
At the same time, Sydney and Melbourne will stop experiencing population growth that constantly outgrows the capacity of existing infrastructure.
Chris Minns, like most labor politicians, identified the problem: allegedly insufficient housing in Sydney. But he ignored three collosal factors driving that problem. First, supply is not the issue. Under John Howard foreigners were limited to buying no more than 50% of units in a new development. Kevin Rudd scrapped that cap and allowed well heeled non residents to buy 100% of units in a new development. Second, supply of land or units is not the problem when labor allows 600k migrants to arrive in only a few years. Some migrants are well to do and compete with Australians for properties. Others are brought in, allegedly refugees, and are supported financially by the Commonwealth. Demand, too much demand is the problem. This results in Australians, young and old being driven out of the property market. Third, last I read, there is no enshrined right for young Australians or for migrants to live and work in Sydney and for Sydney to be affordable. If Sydney siders want to consider their city as “full”, it is surely their right. They should not be forced to accept higher density living when many of the new residents are newcomers.
Until the media exposes Labor and their green friends, by calling out the true problem, that is, that demand and not supply or green tape or red tape or difficult councils is the handbrake on housing policy, no meaningful changes will take place.
Crispy,
What you wrote about acoustic reports is interesting.
How do you propose to address a noise issue without involving an acoustic engineer?
ESB,
I fear you may be going around in circles until you get clarity on the issue.
Fact:
1. You wrote a neighbor Paid 35k and that didn’t solve the matter;
2. You did not reveal if the OC made him pay or that was his decision;
3. Did the neighbor get legal advice before putting his hand in his pocket?
4. If legal advice was received and he was told that he is responsible then the question is whether your situation apes his;
5. Bottom line is either you or the OC need to rectify the noise problem. Possibly the cost will be shared – equally or not – between you and the OC. Or maybe not.
6. The sooner you ask a lawyer to quote on providing you with advice on this matter, the better. Then get advice. It will clarify the issue. After all, it will look terrible at Ncat – if the neighbor takes you there – for you and the OC to be seen to be dragging your feet on the matter.
Just my 2 cents.
Hi Jimmy, I think your suggestion of limiting tenants, via a term in a lease, to those who make little or no noise is akin to kicking the can down the road at the expense of those suffering noise.
Say a tenant agrees to not doing anything that creates noise. And if they or their guests do make a noise? Then the sufferer needs to apply to FT for mediation and later perhaps Ncat to resolve this. Such exercises take time and money and unjustly inconveniences the suffer who will seek mediation with the lot owner or take the lot owner to Ncat. The noise can continue day in day out until mediation or Ncat solves this. It may be months away. Further complications arise when the lot owner seeks to void the lease on the noise complaints. This too requires a trip to Ncat. This time it’s the lot owner versus the tenant.
Prima facie I agree that carpeting is a good option. I suggest ESB gets a quote to carpet his abode. Also, if he is very keen on timber remaining in place, he should get a quote from a solicitor to resolve who is responsible for the situation. Is it the OC or the tricky vendor he purchased from?
Tony, You should write to the strata manager asking what authorization enables him to hold a meeting in this manner when the covid regulations have been repealed.
Ray2u, according to fair Trading nsw, paper meetings MAY be held for strata meetings alone. All other meetings MUST be face to face. Of course, FT does not reveal if committee members or strata agents are fined if they don’t comply.
Kaindub, you wrote that as there was limited paperwork the responsibility has passed to the OC.
In other posts I read, others state that in relation to prior works, not related to the matter of this original poster, that responsibility to fix the problem lies with the unit owner whose beef should be taken up with a previous owner.
How can one distinguish between the two possible liable parties?
Jimmy, as to your recommendation of going to Ncat, as you know it is a complex and often expensive process, the following question must be on the minds of many in this forum: do you know of any law firms that do pro bono work on strata matters? I ask because FT is in my experience not very helpful – thety are not lawyers after all – and hiring a strata lawyer to represent a single owner as in this matter is both expensive and even if successful, costs will not be awarded.
If pro bono lawyers are not available and the only option is so -called legal centres, staffed by young ‘uns or withdrawing the case, then the system is even more unjust than most of us believe.
Jimmy, I doubt strata managers are worried with fair trading looking into their behavior. As you previously wrote, no big stick is used to fine or sanction a badly behaving strata mgr.
At general meetings before any vote I ask for votes to be recorded by u/e or by lot number.
But the strata manager refuses and do the minutes conceal how each lot voted.
How many times must a SM ignore such requests before action is taken by FT?
Bushdoof, you wrote that green circle doesn’t help with strata mgt disputes. Do you mean a dispute against a strata mgr or strata disputes generally? If it’s the former then I suggest you make clear to green circle that you are in a dispute with the owners corp. The strata mgr is just their puppet. His so called fining of you is him doing as he is told by the strata committee
Have you reached out to Circle Green Community Legal? It’s a non profit that helps tenants.
Ziggy, s.37 of the ssma requires sc members to work for the benefit of the OC. To me that means the OC’s interest must trump their personal interest.
I cannot find examples of what behavior constitutes such a breach of s. 37
As I read it, such a breach warrants expulsion from the sc. That said, I cannot find cases where s. 238 was invoked when s.37 breaches were proven.
But maybe I was looking in the wrong places.
I have not been on such a situation but even if I have, no two cases are identical so assuming what happened in another strata will happen in your strata, may or may not come to pass.
I think the smartest thing you can do for this possibly very expensive issue is to have your strata committee seek a legal opinion on this from one of the lawyers that sponsors this website. This may cost a couple of thousand dollars but should prove in the long run to be money well spent.