Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We recently added a fire alarm by-law so we can recover costs from owners and tenants who set off false alarms as we were getting charges from the NSW fire brigade. The tenant was charged via their real estate agent. The matter was take to the tribunal and we were successful, however on appeal we lost. The tribunal would not accept a stat dec from the building manger who was in the building at the time. Unfortunately the fire brigade report in this instance didn’t note the apartment but just the cause of the alarm. We are now discussing what to do. The owner argues they can’t be held responsible as they’ve vetted their tenant properly. Looks like we will have to wear this one and get harder on the fire brigade to ensure we get the correct information.
Some strata plans also have by-laws that restrict rental of parking to owners or tenants of the strata plan so that may be something worth checking. I think they may have an argument that it is a car however if there are no restrictions to the contrary regarding who they can rent to.
I was under the impression that “exclusive use” meant that it was Body Corporate owned and the lot owner was grant exclusive access and use? An example would be a courtyard accessed from the lot but unable to be accessed from elsewhere. It doesn’t form part of the lot holding but is only accessed and used by the one lot owner. This may be in perpetuity (generally carparks unless they actually have their own lot number and can be sold separately), or it may be granted as part of a by-law that is reviewable. Whilst owned by the Body Corporate this doesn’t allow the owner to do anything they want and they still need to comply with any relevant provisions.
Not knowing what else seems to have been happening it seems as if you’ve made the right moves. The strata manager’s reaction seems extreme and somewhat unprofessional have you had a few more falling outs with her/ him? It’s a shame you did not get support from the other owners.
Firstly re fire I can’t see any issues here unless what has been done does not meet code. As I said before no locks are required to meet fire codes.
Locks, if these were not replaced with like then you have an issue with the strata manager and EC. They are required to maintain and should not be making material changes without permission from the owners. You can formally request they replace them and if they fail to do so you can request mediation. If this is not successful you can seek an order from your state-based tribunal.
With regard to passing a maintenance request to an ECM I can understand that could be normal practice but it would not have hurt to add it to general business. However it is obviously a larger issue now and deserves greater discussion. You can formally request it be added to the next ECM and also attend. You can ask to be part of the discussion but the EC doesn’t need to agree. At least the matter must be formally discussed and minuted. Depending on the size of your building this may need to be sent out to all owners or at the very least must be posted on the notice board.
Good do luck with your security issues. Be careful of the fire issue doesn’t take you down a rabbit hole.
We always have General Business as an agenda item. I did clarify that it could not be voted on unless it was a specific item already raised. I thought that was fairly clear. An AGM where no one could raise general business would be fairly worthless. Often many owners never have input with the exception of the AGM.
Again if it is a matter of removing locks for maintenance then there are no rules. As far as fire requirements then having no locks would not be against the law. This discussion confuses the situation. As long as the door is auto-closing to prevent it staying opening and facilitating fire travelling then it is compliant. Was the OP discussing fire or security? If it is security then that is a building matter. If the locks prevent people from exiting then it is another matter. I know of buildings that have a self-closing, non-lockable door only and they are fire certified. If the OP is talking about security we should keep to that unless the fire requirements are impacted by the changes.
You should have been able to bring the item up in General Business at your AGM or to any Exec Committee meeting. The only items that cannot be determined are items that require a vote and the item was not in the agenda prior to the meeting for owners to consider.
The EC is required to maintain the building to current standards and need to seek approval for any changes that are seen as major. If there is a maintenance reason that means removal of the locks I see that as reasonable if required to perform the maintenance. A good strata manager and EC will notify owners and tenants however so there are no surprises.
Why don’t you try to get on the EC at the next AGM?
Putting on a hat from my past life in insurance claims (ugh), the insurer couldn’t refuse a claim unless there is a specific clause in their policy which prevents an activity and even then if the activity did not contribute to the loss then they have no basis to refuse it. The most they could possibly do is deduct a premium to from the payout IF there was an increased risk because of the activity. So for instance if someone was running a sweatshop in a building with industrial sewing machines and there was damage due to a water leak then there is no basis for refusal of the claim. However if the leak damaged some of the machines etc. then there would be no cover as the policy wasn’t for a business. On the other hand if the sewing machines started a fire then there is two possibilities depending on the policy wording. They deny the claim because of improper use in the building or more likely they pay the claim then recover from the business owner.
gloriajean it seems fairly common for building managers to be hanging around without contracts and specified tasks. Any company that is a professional will have a contract available with tasks listed. Easiest thing to do is call and ask for a proposal. They should list the tasks and how regularly they’ll be done. Cost is difficult as it will depend on the tasks and the size of the building. As an example we have a building manager in one large block that we pay $80,000 which includes all basic maintenance, cleaning, liaison with contractors, tenant/ owner contact and obtaining quotes for large jobs. We save money doing this rather than the strata manager hitting us with schedule B fees.
We have rule on one of our ECs where the EC must leave the room for any discussion or vote that involves that EC member, especially where a conflict of interest exists. That makes it more comfortable for people to speak up and also ensures fairness of process. It also allows us to show proper decision making. The conflict of interest is noted and also that the person left the room and did not participate in the discussion or vote. Better for all concerned.
Changing unit entitlements is difficult and expensive. I’d be surprised if this is what has happened. Areas like private courtyards etc. are generally common property with exclusive use. Sometime however this is not formal if the building is old. It would help to get a map of the building and the boundaries of the lots to help determine how to approach the issue. Most of the time items like these would be owned by the OC like an exterior wall of the apartment etc. as they are external to the lot (unless there is a by-law of course).
It also depends how open you want to be at the meeting and how severe the actual issues are. If there are guenuine reasons for the person not to be on the EC then you should speak publicly against their nomination. We had an EC member who repeatedly waged war against other EC members and residents. I kept a note of their behaviours and the impacts. We determined how many extra hours they caused us to deal with matters and the additional Schedule B costs incurred through the strata manager needing to carry out additional tasks. It was so compelling the person got one vote only – their own. You need to do some work to get rid of these type of people but it is worth it in the end.
If you are in NSW the approval must be given by special resolution from the Owners’ Corp. The Executive Committee cannot give this approval hence perhaps the Chair’s resignation. I’m not sure about the resolution i.e. can the Owners’ Corp. rescind the “approval” since the EC never had the authority to do so in the first place.
All information should be generally available on the strata records. That way all owners or potential owners know what is going on in the building.
However the manner in which your complaint has been dealt with seems very unprofessional. The manager should have addressed it directly then tabled the email or letter as correspondence at the next EC meeting. They should not used the EC to lampoon you and publicly harangue you into retracting it.
‘just get on with it’ – thanks for the response. I was indicating my experience with Airbnb and did not put forward a solution regarding changing building rules for tenancy to remedy it. I was indicating my preference of dealing with my issues. I’m sure you have your own strata issues and apportion your own importance to solving them.
“Full stop”. What does that mean even? This is a discussion board. Happy to debate opinion and put up ideas however that is not really an effective way to have a conversation as it comes across as slightly rude. I will assume however you didn’t intend that.