Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If only the penalties were enough to stop owners abusing the visitors car spots. Our tenants generally pull their heads in when given a little reminder. It’s the owners who think they are above the “law” (with some owners believing that by laws are only for tenants and not for owners!).
We always say in our reminder notes that parking in the visitors car spots is only allowed with the written permission of the OC. We do believe that there are very valid reasons for parking in the visitors parking. Should a unit have to have repairs done by the OC and this resident needs to move furniture and belongings into their locked garage for a time, then this would be a reason for parking in the visitors car spots. We have also held the view that those moving in and out of a unit should be allowed to park there during the couple of days it takes to sort things out (we have all been there, what a pain it is to move, packing boxes everywhere, stuff sorted in the garage etc). And I could think of other valid reasons that a resident would need and would be granted permission to park.
The problem is, they want to park when they want to and for whatever reason. Whether they have more cars than garages, want to use their garage for some other reason (storage etc), or they want to hang their washing in there on a rainy day so want to park in visitors spots while it dries. And if it were allowed, every single one of use would use the visitors car spots (there is one visitors spot for every 5 units). Even I would want to use one if I could.
We notify the parking offenders that they are not only parking in visitors car parks (one by law), they are stopping an area of common property from being used as intended (as visitors car parking – another by law) and as the car parks are infact grass, that is parking on a lawn or garden, and this causes damage to common property (thats another couple of by laws there).
When we last had an uprising in this complex, where some owners wanted there to be a change to allow parking in the visitors car parks, the EC suggested that it would only be fair to ask those who had been in the complex since year dot to have first “dibs” on the visitors car parks. There was a shriek of horror from the few who suggested this as they had only moved in recently. They wanted the extra car parking, but they didn’t want anyone else to have it. So it wasn’t changed.
Though not an expert by any means on insurance, I would think the big problem with over insuring would be the higher premiums you pay along the way. So in the unlikely event of a rebuild, you are insured for $1.5M but only need $1M perhaps you could have to look at how much money you have paid over the years for that extra $500,000.
As your insurance should be reviewed each year, you can always adjust it to cover a bit more each AGM to reflect the increase in value of your property and the projected increases of building materials, labour etc should the unthinkable happen.It reall would depend on what exactly your policy covers you for. For instance, does it cover landscaping?
When it comes to building, the price of a new home rarely reflects the actual cost. When you go to those display homes centres, the cost of building the new home often does not cover the exterior landscaping, driveways or even some of the features found on the inside. So if your insurance policy is for the rebuild of the actual structure only, then yes it would cost more to “complete” your complex to original should the unthinkable happen and the building was damaged to the extent you would need a rebuild.
The $500,000 more that your building is covered for is $125,000 per unit. It sometimes pays to look at extra costs by dividing by the number of units and see whether that cost is justified in that way. Check out your policy first and see what is covered.Could you let this owner pay in installments? We did this with a special levy here. Though it wasn’t a huge amount of money per unit, everyone was pleased with paying out the money over a few quarters. Though if it is a large amount of money you are talking about, and they don’t have any money, maybe they can’t even do that.
I do believe that Mr & Mrs Average can run a strata complex. They just have to be pointed in the right direction.
Decisions have to be looked at not in a case by case situation, but in regards to the whole complex. You have to consider that my agreeing to one request, you are agreeing to everyone.
Really an EC needs the guidance of a decent SM and access to a strata lawyer for the more legal aspects. They also just need to use some common sense.
So what are you suggesting? That people who, through circumstance or preference, should live in a concrete tower, surrounded by people who show little or no interest in the other people living around them, should just curl up in their sofa's alone!
Well some people may like to do just that. But for many others, the companionship of a furry flatmate is all they have to destress, or to simply get up and go in the morning. Not everyone can afford the luxury of a house (whether purchase or renting) in order to have a backyard for a dog to run around in.
Having dogs in apartments is common place and very effective in cities such as New York. Most apartment complex's are pet friendly and they advertise their location, not just by proximity to bars and restaurants, but to dog parks. It gets people out and about from their apartments. And that cannot be a bad thing.
There is evidence that suggests that people who own pets, and take good care of them, are better towards their fellow human beings as well. I know in my complex, that those who state that they hate animals are the ones who cause the most trouble to their fellow humans/neighbours. Just an interesting observation.
With more and more mediium/high density housing in this country in the future, there are going to be more dogs (and cats) living in these high rise structures. Responsible pet ownership should always be encouraged -and getting someone else to take your dog for a walk when you don't have time is being a responsible pet owner. Whether you are in an apartment or a house for that matter.
I bought my place off the plan. Was there for the first AGM where we decided our by-laws – including pets. Our SM advised us to allow pets within reason (ie not large dogs). SM said that to say no could lead to a long drawn out battle and best to allow small animals. So far no problems and being pet friendly seems to be a big selling point judging on how fast places here sell and usually for above asking price.
So if you buy off the plan you don't know what the pet policy will be until it is in place. You could be buying into a complex of people who don't want to have pets like downsizers – don't want lawns or pets to take care of anymore. Or professionals who simply do not have the time to take care of a pet.
If you already have a pet, could be risky. But if you don't, you could see how things go and put your two cents worth in at the first AGM. Let others see that though they may not want pets, when they sell in the future the next owner might.
My previous post on this matter was really to say that you should be concerned about anyone who moves into your complex – and to not breathe a sigh of relief just because they have bought and are owners. Not necessarily so. You can't be complacent just because someone has paid a large sum of money to live there!
I cannot recall if I have told this story before – I was dealing with a tradesman quoting for some work in this complex. He asked if there was housing commission places here. I asked him why. He replied because of the state/presentation of some of the places. Interested I asked him to point out which places he thought were housing commission and which ones owner occupier. He pointed to owner occupier units as being housing commission and those with tenants as being owners.
The best residents we have ever had here were renters. They took pride in their home and the complex as well. They wanted the place to look good for their family and friends as well as for their fellow neighbours. We should all take such care of our homes – regardless of our “situations”.
Believe only what you see yourself. The only time I have heard of such accomodation provided was for emergency purposes only whilst more appropriate accomodation is found.
Can tell you that in this complex, the people who destroy common property, dump furniture on common property, leave rubbish around the complex, have knee high weeds between the pavers at their front doors, who park where ever they want, who make outragous claims on the OC – are the owners!
And as for people needing public housing – “there but for the grace of God go I!” Alot of people in this country are only one months pay away from asking for help. You can only make a determination yourself when you see for yourself.
Keep up the fight Macfadyen. There is a lot of corrupt EC's out there and many residents don't do anything about them. If an EC makes a ruling for one, then it should be for all – and that should be taken into consideration when an EC makes a decision ie how it affects others, the complex as a whole, not just one unit/one owner.
I would like to see penalties applied to EC's who make uninformed, unfair decisions that may adversly affect the lives of residents and the integrity of the complex. They should be made more accountable and any incidence of harrassment or bias taken further. And EC's members who participate in behaviours unbecoming a person in “authority” should be asked to step down. I know from past experience that many people go onto an EC in the belief that they can approve works for themselves, deny valid works for others and play favorites with those who bit their tongues.
Your home is and should be your castle. It should not be governed by people who believe it is as easy as saying yes or no at will.
It is totally out of line to harrass someone about volunteering around the complex. You cannot make someone volunteer.
Though you should consider whether your levies will cover a third party. In our complex, when it was built and all moved in, we were all like minded people. At least 50% of us would do a bit of work here and there. Then most of these volunteers move out and left just a few. In their place were owners who expected absolutely everything done for them out of their levies. Problem was, the levies were not calculated to cover everything. So it was put to the owners that we would have to increase the levies, quite substantially if they wanted everything covered. We were met with a resounding “No increase”.
The few in the complex who continued to do a bit of work gave up. We have personally witnessed owners who will step over pieces of paper in the driveway, or at their front doors because that is for someone else to do. So we did get in third parties to do the most of the work. And we did have to increase the levies. I would estimate that our costs in maintaining this complex have risen about $7,000pa because of paying for third parties. And thats with owners/residents expected to keep the immediate area of their units clear, clean and tidy (which many don't) and with a few of us still doing extra work when necessary between visits from the teams we now pay.
Though I am no expert on the subject, we did have an owner once claim that he had rising damp – in his first floor bedroom. A search of the internet provided information that rising damp is normally found something like 30cms above ground floor (or close to this figure anyway).
Not knowing your complex or its construction, if there is a slab construction in these townhouses, and there is damp above this slab area in the townhouse, then there could be a water/drainage problem under the slab. And I am pretty sure that any problem from under the slab is strata/OC. The owner is responsible from the top of the slab. Though your complex sounds like it has many different types of construction in it.
I have been told previously by our SM that our OC has an obligation to pay for the investigation of the origin of a problem to determine whether it is an OC or owner responsibility.