Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If it is flyscreens you are referring to and your complex has adopted the model bylaws, then it does say under Item 5 damage to common property, though an owner cannot mark, paint….or otherwise damage or deface etc, in subaragraph (3) that this by law does not prevent an owner or person authorized by an owners to install (b) any screen or other device for prevent entry of animals or insects on the lot. It later states that any such devices must be installed correctly and be in keeping with the appearance of the rest of the building.
If the handrails you are referring to are handrails on the outside of the townhouses, rather than have each owner draw up their own special by law to install a handrail in their nit, why don’t you have one drawn up for the whole complex that stipulates what type, colour of handrail is permitted in the complex and where exactly they can be fitted and which company to use. Though beware that any company you authorize to do such works may not be in business when the next owner wants a handrail and another company may not produce the same handrail. Then you could well end up with a mixed bag of handrails affecting the look of the complex.
Why don’t you look into getting handrails installed for all units by the OC. Get quotes and if extra monies are required you could spread a special levy over a few quarters to ease the cost to owners. In this way you can control the look of your complex. And handrails are not only handy for the elderly, they can make it easier and safer for a lot of people.
Whale. First of all 400 not out! Congrats on your 400th post!
I do not like to say never but I will y I will never help those who do not help themselves. Yes, I could get this place into ship shape. It was when I was on the EC previously. Of course I did most of the work whilst others sat back. And residents do not speak to me because they knew I did most of the work and therefore blame me for being told what to do, but still speak to other on the EC. Those others are now on the EC, doing nothing and getting good mornings from the residents.
I will not be solely responsible for getting others homes maintained whilst they sit back sipping chardonnay and wondering what else they will whine about for someone else to take care of. I am taking care of my place. I have had time off work. I have been working around the place sprucing it up. I have the tradesmen coming in a couple of weeks to do some work. Hell, I am even going to get quotes for floorboards. Not giving any notice, don’t care about the noise rating. As I only have one neighbour, if it only bothers them and no o me else cares is it really a breach? If my neighbour goes to the EC, it would take them I would estimate 6 months to even answer if they even bother. But knowing what residents in this complex are like my neighbour will sit back and wait for the AGM to complain that the EC should realized that he had increased noise despite not advising them so.
Normally I would be loathe to even think about breaching a by law as a matter of principle. But I feel this belief is not worth the effort any more. I am even going to change/repair common property outside my place without permission. Who is going to stop me? They don’t bother about any other by laws. They turn a blind eye. So if they bother with me I will take that as discriminiation. If it is ok for one to break a by law, and in this complex ok for most, them it is definitely ok for me.
I want out. If the residents here want to sit around waiting for someone to blame then let them. If they want to keep passing by broken and run down features without telling anyone good on them. I am not going to do any work to benefit them. Just for myself.
On that joyous rant, I would like to wish all a happy new year! I will have a glass of champers for you all! I know thats a lot of alcohol, but I need that much to live in this place.
The residents here still believe that having a strata manager means that they arrange and do all the work. They agreed to sack the last strata manager because nothing was being done. Now they are waiting for the new strata manager to get things done. They just don’t get it.
With the old strata manager things did get done when the old EC told them to go ahead. Then the new EC came inboard. Nothing h been done since. Now the new SM has been inboard for over 4 months. Nothing. But still I have heard the residents say they are waiting for the SM to get the outstanding maintenance works done.
I would like the strata manager to be paid to run the place. It would be fantastic to advise them of a problem, and know that it will be attended to. But these residents do not want to pay for anything in this complex. They want their levies low, but want the OC to cover everything and anything, want someone else to do everything, arrange everything and believe that any problem in the complex is for someone else to notice, report and fix.
I truly believe that they are all sitting around waiting for me to do something. When I was on the EC that is what I did. I arranged the quotes, tradespeople, meetings, did the odd jobs, got onto the SM. And I believe that the EC is waiting for me to do something. But they can wait all they want.
So what happens when you have an EC of 5 and one of those members resigns. No one else wants to be on the EC. Owners are asked if they want to fill the position but no takers. This is what happened in our complex. So what do you do when no one wants to be on the committee?
The following year we had a totals of one member on the EC. There is zero interest in being in the EC in this complex, nor for anything else to do with its running and maintenance. However, 100% of owners complain at the AGM every year about nothing being done regarding the running and maintenance of the complex. It is because of the attitude of owners that the committee member resigned. And by no one wants to be on the committee.
The place to find out what constitutes complying development and non complying development is your local council, not this forum. Development requirements can differ from council to council, state to state.
Yes it does matter if it is a load bearing wall – a lot. To weaken such s structure without the proper structural engineers report and rercommendations could cause significant damage to your building as a whole.
To make such a change would require not only the aforementioned engineers report, but council permission and owners corporation permission which would no doubt include a special by law or exclusive use by law drawn up. With such additional costs to yourself for this window to door transformation, you would have to weigh up if it is really worth it.
So what if a member of the EC resigns and no one wants to be on it in their place? We have had an EC member resign. No meeting was called. And no one filled the position. It wouldn’t matter if a meeting was called. No one would have put their hand up. And if someone was nominated they would have refused. Our complex is so dysfunctional it just isn’t funny anymore.
If you have enough people left on the EC what does it matter anyway? I could understand if the was only one on the committee, which had happened here, and they resigned of course a meeting should be held. But no one here cares about anything much. So if they all resigned tomorrow, no difference here. Nothing would get done with no EC members. And nothing here gets done with them.
Merry Christmas to all.
And as for Robbiejove not getting permission for his cat prior to moving in, well there is enough to worry about when moving as we all know. And with some EC’s taking their own good time to get around to doing anything let alone approving a pet, such as my EC, then even those with the best intentions may find themselves in breach of by not waiting for approval.
In my complex we have quite a few pet owners. And I know for a fact that not one of them has applied for official approval to keep them. Why? I believe most people believe that because the by laws state that permission will not be unreasonably refused and that this complex is advertised as pet friendly then that is permission enough.
And though I present myself as a stickler for following by laws, the fact that all pet owners in my complex are very responsible in not allowing them on common property and no noise or waste issues then these by laws are far more important than whether or not anyone has actually officially said yes to their being here. And with my EC, most pets would have died of old age before they got around to the approvals anyway.
Robbiejove has done the right things in keeping his cat inside his apartment. So no one had seen the cat, just the litter which could well have been purchased for someone else. If the little hadn’t been seen and Robbiejove continued to be a good resident pet owner, it may well have transpired that no one would have ever known there was a cat there.
My friend had to agree to a code of conduct for his dogs as part of the CTTT ruling. He had already provided his EC with such a statement but they wanted to take it further, mainly on the urging of just one member.
As part of your preparation to take this further, get all the information about your cat prepared as is recommended by the websites I mentioned (their vaccinations, letter from vet) and that they will not be free to wander on common property, will not pee in the corridor nor claw the carpet in the foyer. And that all waste will be properly disposed of (wrapped and placed in bins).
It would be reasonable to deny the keeping of a pet if such pet caused problems in the complex and the owners did nothing to address them. It is unreasonable to deny the pet simply because it resides there unless the bylaws state no pets. And I would be inclined to bring the cat back too.I have a friend who was told by his EC that he could not have his small dogs in his apartment. The reason was because they are there. There has been no complaints, no incidents within the complex. It is just because one EC member saw the dogs going for a walk. He took it to mediation nd then the tribunal and he won.
Have.a look at the pets in the city website. It has a lot of information about pets in strata. Also, the law society website has a section about pets in strata. If you re friendly with any other owners you could talk to them as to whether they are bothered by the fact you have a cat.
I believe it is unreasonable to deny permission for a pet simply because it is there. If they do not want pets in their complex they should have had that written into the by laws.
on ya Whale. You will do well in that job. As I have said before your wealth of iinformation and knowledge has been a great benefit to myself and others on flat chat over the past couple of years. Can always rely on you for a very informative answer.
The original post says that a letter was received from the strata manager, not that a notice to comply was received. I believe that before a notice to comply is issued that a meeting of the EC should be held. However, if someone complains about a breach of by laws to the strata manager, then they can send out a letter.
A lewould from the SM would be a formal way of letting a resident know that they are in breach of. Having this formal record would facilitate taking any further action if necessarythe attempts have been made to advise the resident of this breach so they can stop doing it. To get a letter about a breach is not bullying.
I too have a garge where my car just fits in because of all the stuff stored there. I have two choices when I need to get/do something. I can park on the street or get rid of the stuff. Just like everyone elose in the complex.
For me, a complex where no one complains news it bothers them directly is a bit like the not in my backyard brigade. That is, one will see something that might affect someone else but as it doesn’t affect themselves they say nothing. Until the same does affect them. I have spent my time in strata standing up for the enforcement of by laws for others as well as myself. But am beginning to wonder why.
I would not like to live in a complex that allows residents who have the room outside their garage to park their cars to the detriment of those who don’t have the room who may be found in breach of by laws. I do not see why one resident gets to have extra space to park their cars, with no extra financial cost (extra unit entitlements/levies etc) but the bloke who doesn’t have the extra space too bad park somewhere else or get fined! if those who parked outside their garages had to pay for the privilege of the extra parking, I may consider that. But you just wait and see how ,any will not think it is such a good idea anymore if they have to put their hand in their pockets to have three parking spaces.
There is a townhouse complex near me. It has better floor layouts, a courtyard and terrace area, and most of them have been extensively renovated and look fantastic. But they sell for about $50,000 less than the places in m complex. I. Looked at this complex when looking for a place for m elderly mother. There were cars parked along the driveway, outside the garages. Sure, there was space for others to get past and get in and out of their garages. But the place looks like a parking lot.
I have a friend who lives in a complex where all have double garages except him. So everyone has two garages yet they still park down the driveway and in the visitors spots. My friend has difficultly getting to his garage let alone in it. But as he is the only one affected, his is the only voice to speak up, and the others are happy with their little arrangement and would all vote that this is ok, my friend is left to have no where for friends and family to visit and be found in breach if he parks outside his garage. No, it is just not right. Why should they get extra parking whilst my friend gets only what he paid for when he purchased?I’m sorry. But for me you either abide by the by laws or you don’t. You can’t say that one isn’t a big breach but that one is. They are either in breach or they are not.
We have an example in our complex where a complaint about a resident in apartment B from the resident in apartment A has lead to those in apt B claiming they are being picked on because the resident in apt C is doing the same thing. But those in C are not bothering those in A with their actions and no one else seems bothered. So what if the matter escalates and is taken further? If it is shown that other residents are doing the same action but have not been issued any notice, would the complaint from residents in apt A have a leg to stand on?
Wouldn’t it be better to have a system where by laws are enforced by all and if not there is an easy and consistent way to have the matter dealt with? And if complex’s do not want to follow by laws, they can get rid of all or some of them. Don’t bend a little here but be rigid there. We used to be a complex that turned a blind eye to this and that. If someone parked once in a blue moon in visitors spots, or in the driveway, we thought it is only once. But because they didn’t receive a note saying don’t do it, that once became twice, became thrice, became just about everyday. But we gave them an inch and they did take a mile. And so did the someone else, then someone else all because no one did anything in the first instance. It was turning into open slather free for all. Now there is a notice in the first instance. We have almost managed 100% compliance to the “visible” by laws.
At least in my complex, I can now have visitors who can park, we can access our garages without having to dodge cars and I can come home and know what my home/the complex will look like (ie no changes to the external appearance). I moved into strata for the protections that the by laws gave me over and above the civil laws if I lived in a house. I have fought many a battle over by laws on “principle”. I have won those battles. I did not get a warm fuzzy feeling on my wins, because I should not have had to fight in the first place.