Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
weetbix – warranties are always ‘voluntary’ so it is up the company supplying the product whether or not they wish to extend a warranty, that goes for all goods and services. The issue you describe has nothing to do with warranties.
newlsie – going to the media won’t achieve anything but prolong the process. If your OC and SC are not willing to abide by the order made by the NCAT, the only way you are going to get that work done is by applying for a compulsory strata manager. Everything else will simply delay the process. So it all depends on how much longer you wish to delay things.
I have seen many owners in my scheme do everything but take the matter to the NCAT, and they have gotten no where. Our SC has on occasions put there foot down and refused to comply with Tribunal orders. Applying for a penalty order doesn’t ensure the work will be carried out, its merely a fine applied to the OC. Only a compulsory strata manager can take over and obtain quotes, pay for the works etc.
There is no black and white answer to this one. It all depends on the ‘extent’ and scope of the kitchen renovations to be carried out.
Section 110 of the Act now allows for an owner to renovate a kitchen subject to approval of the OC at a general meeting. This only requires an ordinary majority vote, not a special resolution. This section mentions that the OC can create a by-law delegating the approval process for all minor renovations to the SC.
The same section however excludes certain works listed under clause 7 as listed below:
(7) This section does not apply to the following work:
(a) work that consists of cosmetic work for the purposes of section 109,
(b) work involving structural changes,
(c) work that changes the external appearance of a lot, including the installation of an external access ramp,
(d) work involving waterproofing,
(e) work for which consent or another approval is required under any other Act,
(f) work that is authorised by a by-law made under this Part or a common property rights by-law,
(g) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
So if a kitchen renovation will involve (b) structural changes and (d) work involving water proofing, then you need to refer to section 108 of the Act where an owner of a lot will require a special resolution and by-law in order to alter or change the common property in a kitchen.
In summary, I guess the intention of section 110 was to enable an owner who wishes to carry out minor renovations to a kitchen to more easily obtain approval from the OC. Any work to a kitchen that is more extensive and involves significant alterations may fall under section 108. It all comes down to the scope of works the owner wishes to undertake.
newlsie, the NCAT cannot ‘force’ the OC to carry out the work, technically no one can, however they can appoint a compulsory strata manager with full powers of the OC in the case of a dysfunctional strata scheme. One example of a dysfunctional scheme is one where Tribunal orders are not complied with. The compulsory managers role would be to ensure that orders made by the NCAT are complied with.
As Lady Penelope mentioned, you could try applying for a renewal of proceedings requesting that the NCAT attached a deadline for the work to be completed, assuming one hasn’t already been set by the Tribunal in the order already made.
Another option is applying for penalty order for non-compliance of an order. That may wake your OC up into doing something about this order.
You are spot on there Jimmy, I suppose the government cannot control everything and cater for every possible scenario. If a lot owner/occupant decides to remove a lock, that is a decision they have made as an individual.
There is always going to be situations that are outside the control of the OC. As long as the OC does their due diligence and installs complying locks by the date in the legislation, that’s all that matters.
Even if the law stipulated that locks are to be ‘non-removable’, someone will always find a way around this. As they say, ‘where there is a will, there is a way’.
Lady Penelope is correct in that an OC doesn’t require a by-law to enter a lot to install window locks as the legislation already allows for the OC to carry out work to common property, and owners must allow access. Window locks would be common property as they are attached to the windows which are common property in most schemes.
If you aren’t happy with a window installers opinion, simply go to another one. As Lady Penelope pointed out, it may be an idea to source a compliant lock yourselves then engage a lock smith to install them.
Am I right in the assumption that given our application was made when the existing ByLaw is in place that they must respond to our current application accordingly, treat it on it’s own merits and not delay for 4 months whilst they attempt to rally support for a No Pets ByLaw change?
Yes you are right, since you have requested permission during your current by-law, your request would fall under that by-law.
And given our exemplary pet ownership history and that the 2nd dog is the exact same breed (albeit a puppy) that they are unreasonably withholding approval?
Only the Tribunal can determine that. Everyone will have a different view on what ‘reasonable’ is. What you may feel is ‘reasonable’ may not be ‘reasonable’ to another owner within your scheme.
You certainly have the option to take the matter to the Tribunal arguing that the OC are taking too long to provide a response. However what you have done incorrectly is what many owners try do, which is, you obtained an animal before obtaining approval from the owners corporation (regardless of how long the OC is taking to provide a response).
Technically you may be in breach of your animals by-law presently. Just because you haven’t heard back from the OC regarding your request for a second dog, this doesn’t give you or any other owner the right to simply take matters into your own hands and bring a new dog into your premises. Your OC could issue you a notice-to-comply and pursue you through the NCAT for a penalty or an order to remove the animal.
Certainly you can rally owners together to try change the keeping of animals by-law in your scheme to a more ‘pet friendly’ version. I guess you could make an application to the NCAT for an order, however since you may be in breach of a by-law, not sure how this will look in front of a Tribunal member.
Hi Amy
Your strata manager is correct in that you don’t need to change your current by-laws, you simply need to review your current by-laws as per the new Act. Overall there is nothing wrong with what your managing agent has said from the information you have supplied so far. Not sure why you would keep your old by-laws, you may as well update your old set of by-laws to the the most current version as written in the Regulations of 2016. Makes your scheme appear more proactive and up-to-date with current laws, however in the end its up the owners within your scheme.
Sounds like Whoopi paid $100 deposit to the OC for the scanner/key which is very common. I guess the $100 deposit covers lost/damaged key replacements. Normally an owner would obtain a scanner/key from the OC or building manager. There is no set amount of scanners/keys you are allowed to have, this is controlled by your OC. The legislation doesn’t mention scanners or keys at all.
I guess like anything else, should a dispute arise about a scanner/key and you cannot resolve the dispute internally with your OC, you could apply for mediation and may require a decision of the NCAT as a general dispute under section 232 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.
Apply to the NCAT for a compulsory strata manager. At least if an independent compulsory strata manager is appointed, this will take away all decision making powers of the strata committee.
If there is fraud involved, you could try report it to the Police, however I am not sure whether they will be interested. If not, the owners will need to seek independent legal advice to recover what you believe are ‘stolen funds’.
HappyNow, owners corporations have the ability to prioritise repairs to common property. Even though the Act does not stipulate this, it comes down to common sense. If a building has many large costly repairs, if they were all to be actioned at once, the increase in levies for owners would be astronomical.
I have seen orders made by the NCAT in similar situations where the OC made decisions to repair one part of a building over another, and not action all common property repairs at the one time. The NCAT upheld the OC’s decision to do this due to the reasons I mentioned above. As proudsceptic mentioned, we don’t all the details of your matter, you could try mediate with the OC as a first step.
Hopefully this will help you out:
(1) Procedure for authorising changes to common property An owners corporation or an owner of a lot in a strata scheme may add to the common property, alter the common property or erect a new structure on common property for the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property.
(2) Any such action may be taken by the owners corporation or owner only if a special resolution has first been passed by the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed.
(3) Ongoing maintenance A special resolution under this section that authorises action to be taken in relation to the common property by an owner of a lot may specify whether the ongoing maintenance of the common property once the action has been taken is the responsibility of the owners corporation or the owner.
(4) If a special resolution under this section does not specify who has the ongoing maintenance of the common property concerned, the owners corporation has the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance.
Some good points raised by proudsceptic. Most likely your scheme has the minimum number of visitor car park spots as per the development consent, so that’s not an issue. Your main issue, as you mention, is that the visitor car park spots are filled with vehicles that are not owned by visitors. This is a very common problem is strata schemes.
If this is the case, there is no need to enter into a commercial agreement with your local council to monitor the car parking situation as your owners corporation through the executive committee should be enforcing the by-laws of the scheme.
Most schemes, including yours, will have a by-law covering parking. If your executive committee isn’t enforcing the by-laws of scheme, including your parking by-law, you can apply for mediation against the owners corporation. If need be, you can take the matter to the Tribunal for an order.
Well said Pamela. The strata/community manager (assuming you live in a strata scheme within a community association) doesn’t make up rules as he/she goes along. They do however enforce the by-laws of the scheme/association. You need to make yourself very familiar with the wording of your by-laws. If your dog urinates on common property gardens, and the urine damages the plants, that certainly may be a breach of a very common by-law called ‘Damage to common property’.
By letting your dog off a leash near garden beds and plants you are taking a risk of being in breach of the above mentioned by-law. I understand this was not raised when you requested permission to keep an animal, however it is common sense that an owner should not allow their animal to damage the common property. You are responsible for your dogs actions, especially while the dog is not on a leash.
The legislation doesn’t prevent a person leaving personal items on common property however your by-laws may. In terms of a breach of a by-law, this will depend on your current by-laws and how creative the owners corporation can be interpreting whether leaving shoes outside ones unit is a problem. The following by-laws may relate to your issue:
9 Depositing rubbish and other material on common propertyAn owner or occupier of a lot must not deposit or throw on the common property any rubbish, dirt, dust or other material likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot or of any person lawfully using the common property.
17 Appearance of lot(1) The owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the written consent of the owners corporation, maintain within the lot anything visible from outside the lot that, viewed from outside the lot, is not in keeping with the rest of the building.