Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I seem to recall our Strata Manager telling us that a visitor can use the space for 24 hours then move on. I need to get clarification on this timing though as we have had quite a few “visitors” parking for days on end, not moving the car once and as our visitors spots are grass, causing damage. We also have had one resident who apparently “minded” his friends car whilst this friend when on holidays, parking it in the visitors spot for a week.
Ask your SM if there is, within the bylaws (model or otherwise) something about this 24 hour period. In the past, our complex has been quite relaxed about this rule as we also have residents who have regular visitors from interstate, usually only staying a couple of days, not the better part of a week or more. But give them an inch….. So once again, the actions of a few will affect all.
I did not say they the by laws work here, I said that I moved into such a place for the added protection of strata by laws. And so do many others. But we, like many strata complexes, have residents who believe strata by laws are for everyone else but them and those who believe it is only them breaking the laws so it shouldn't matter. But one sees apartment X doing it so apartment Y does too then apartment Z starts.
From reading your posts I read that you live in a type of strata which has distance between you and your neighbours. This would be luxury to some of us who are living within metres of each other. When rubbish, junk and cars are left right outside my neighbours door, they are also right outside mine. When living in medium/high density strata, others actions directly affect your life visually and physically.
My point being, if I wanted to live next door to someone who likes to leave things lying around, I would prefer to live in a house where there is that little bit more distance between me and their stuff and not here where their stuff is arms reach away.
Billen Ben, that is just how I personally would take this matter to the OC/EC in chicken feets case. If the mail boxes are common property, and they are supposed to be lockable then they should be maintained in that way. Although locks I would think are the responsibility of the individual owners? the actual structure with doors hanging off hinges I would have thought would be for the OC to maintain/repair.
Chicken feets mail box is apparently in a structure and locks were initially provided on the mail boxes on the closable doors. So if this structure was in place initially, and therefore initially providing a secure place for your mail, than I would perhaps suggest to the OC that, due to their lack of attention to this common property, I may hold them responsible for missing mail. Or they can let me do something about it myself!
In your case, as no lockable mail boxes were provided in the first instance, and this accessible system has been there since day dot, don't like your chances of holding them responsible for missing mail. Rather, you could suggest that a more secure mail box structure be built. Or stick to the PO Box.
Our complex has a lockable secure letterbox structure keep in good condition. Some residents have lost their keys – their problem. But the structure is secure and all the letterbox doors are locked (though this does not stop someone from taking the mail sticking out of the letterbox! so not 100%). Therefore, many residents here have a PO box for the ultimate in mail security. So even with lock and key, can't be sure these days.
Personally, if it were me, I would write to the EC/OC and tell them that I want a secure letter box for my mail. I would also point out that I may hold them responsible for any mail theft and subsequent repercussions of this.
If it were only the key, that would be easy. But if it is the whole structure, and doors are hanging off, that surely is the responsibility of the OC.
I believe that in the model bylaws, regarding changing common property, that you did not need permission where it was for safety or security (don't have the bylaws at hand to quote exactly). I would check whether this would constitute security and safety (identity theft) and, should the OC not be forthcoming with the repairs, I personally would advise that I will be installing a new letterbox.
But you have to check! And you have to advise! Don't go marching in there and doing work yourself, even if the letterboxes are in a state of disrepair. Put it all in writing. Complain. Draw it to their attention. Follow up! In the meantime, perhaps you could get a PO box.
I personally chose to live in my current strata residence not only because of price (cheaper than a house) size (smaller therefore easier to look after than a house) but also for the added protection of the strata bylaws.
If I wanted to have trouble getting into my driveway/garage due to neighbours cars parked all over the place, if I wanted to walk out my front door and see garage/rubbish/rusted cars/overgrown weedy gardens, if I wanted to come home and find my neighbour had constructed a lean-to out the front and painted it purple, I would have bought a house. I am protected from this by living in strata – or so I hoped. So if the “rules” of strata weren't there I wouldn't be here. And so say lots of us.
So this parking offender is an owner? And yourself and the other resident rent from your mothers?
It sound to me like a case of “I'm an owner so I can do what I like but you can't” syndrome. This has occurred in my complex on occasion. Owners have seriously thought that the by-laws only applied to those who rent and owners did not have to abide by them because they own the place! Therefore owners could do what they like and renters had to put up with it. And we are talking about educated people here!
And we also have residents who think that if the visitors parking is full (alot of the time with other residents) its OK for them to let their visitors park in front of their garages because a visitors is not a resident and therefore they are not doing anything wrong (even if other residents cannot get past, park in their garages etc). And we do not have a problem with street parking here! And yet………….
Keep taking photos and a diary of offences. If your Mum is the owner perhaps you could get her to take the matter further? You cannot live like that. And no one else should have to either. They cannot do what they want. If you want to park 4 cars at your front door, buy a house and concrete the front lawn.
Well said Whale!
From what I have read of the memorandum, it does contain a lot of common sense which is what is needed in strata. Especially for those who still believe strata means never having to do any or pay for any maintenance whatsoever either inside or outside their homes!
What if the hard wired smoke alarms are wholly with the unit? Such as the case here in townhouses? We have hard wired alarms that only service the individual units so surely this would be an owners responsibility to maintain, repair?
Good on you for taking the initiative and leaving a nice note for your neighbours. That's the way to do it. We have had residents previously who have complained about noise from their neighbour but it is hard for the EC to get involved when they haven't experienced the noise, and infact no other neighbours have!
Just a nice polite note, because most people would not realise how much you can hear from next door until you point it out. And if you don't point it out, they won't know!
The main offender of parking in visitors spots moved his “truck” – after a note was left under his door (on day 6 of his parking) with all the dates that his truck and their other car have been parked in a visitors spots (which was half of the month of October up to the 24th!).
The residents next to the visitors spots reported that he revved up the truck at 7am after receiving said note and moved it to the empty street (seriourly, most flatchat readers would not believe how much parking this complex has out on the street!) where it has stood every since!
It seems that he has been able to place able bodied one foot in front of the other and walk the extra 10 or so steps that parking illegally in the visitors spots saved him.
Perhaps, after we send our another notice spelling out in plain English that the visitors parking is for visitors and car washing, we could ask the Strata Manager to charge offenders a $50 fee for sending out Notices to Comply. This $50 fee worked really well when our Strata Manager complained about the number of chase up correspondence sent out to people who were very forgetful! Since that fee was introduced the SM has had to chase up only a few people.
So a $50 fee for a Notice to Comply, for each by-law (parking on common property, obstructing area from its intended use, damage to lawns and noise) that would be $200! Personally, don't care if the SM benefits from those say “but no one was using the space when I parked there”. This morning is day 6 in a row that one resident has parked his ute in a visitors car space. So thats all weekend when most people have friends and family over. Most people want to wash their cars. The arrogance and lack of respect for others is astounding from this resident!
Am no expert on taps but could there be another problem other than the washers? Could it be the taps?
The taps in my current unit, bought brand new, didn't last! Myself and other owners included have had to have taps replaced as they “died” within about 5 years of moving into the complex! So if you have had the place for 14 years, is that the age of the taps? Or are they older? That is what I would look at if I had changed washers that often in recent times before doing it again or before changing to ceramic washers as Whale suggests.
In our situation was hoping to find residents in question in breach of numerous bylaws, not just the parking bylaw. For instance, from the model bylaws which this complex adopted (with a couple of our own), was thinking of:
Bylaw 2: Vehicle parking on common property without permission.
Bylaw 3: Obstruction common property from intended use. Not only the parking, but for residents car washing and maintenance of the lawn area. Also some residents have complained their their bonafide visitors with physical impairment (ie the elderly) cannot walk down our driveway as it is very steep (infact the steepness doesn't meet Building Code standards!). So they are more than annoyed when other residents constantly park in these limited spots!
Bylaw 4: Damage to lawns on common property. The council insists we have lawn, not concrete. Constant parking has deprived this area of sunshine, let alone the pressure of cars constantly parking there. Should be empty 50% of the time even allowing for the odd rogue parker.
Bylaw 5: Damage to common property. With the lawns dying and the constant parking, the soil is compacted and affecting drainage and the erosion of the top soil has caused an uneven surface, something that our insurer wanted addressed in the past (spent $5000 upgrading visitors car parks to satisfy insurer and council).
Also Bylaw 1: The main offenders of parking favor the visitors parking located right under the window of a resident whose bedroom is 4 metres away. This constant coming and going is bothering this resident especially as the main offenders drive utes/SUVs/V6/V8 cars and sometimes arrive in the middle of the night or rev them up at 5am. This resident has mentioned on numerous occasions that should the matter of the parking not be addressed may ask for sound proofing/double glazing/privacy film be supplied by OC!
So thoughts on us hitting these serial offenders with all of the above? Breaching more than one bylaw in the one instance? Anyone done similar?
As we are about to send out even more “reminder” notices about residents not parking in the visitors car spots, was wondering whether it is worth writing to the owner of one unit whose tenant is a serial offender. In May 2011, the Flat Chat column “Party over for crash pad owners” where it said that the owners of an apartment where found responsible for noise created by their tenants, could we advise the owners that their tenant does not comply with by laws and to instruct them to do such or we may find the owner responsible for their tenants behaviour?
This however does not help with the resident owner who is fast becoming the biggest abuser of parking in the visitors spots, despite ample street parking and a garage of their own. However, they have not received numerous reminder notices – yet.
There are no visitors car spots for anyone having visitors this weekend. Residents have already snaffled them. Too bad for those having friends and family over! The parking area has been badly damaged now due to the constant stream of residents (it is, by order of the council, a grassed area – or should I say was grassed). So should we also politely tell them that it is against our strata by laws to damage common property and their constant parking has caused damage? With the cars there,especially on weekends, the OC can't even do any maintenance on this lawn area to maintain it. Can we find them liable (or at least insinuate that we may find them liable) to pay for the grass to be reinstalled? The grassed area is also where owners can wash their cars legally. So they are not only breaking a by law regarding parking on common property but also regarding blocking the use of common property for its intended use (we have previously quoted this by law when residents “stole” garbage bins for their personal use)