Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Oh please, please, please let it be true that in the near future the act will allow for those residents who park in the visitors spots will have their cars towed away. And I want to be there to see the look on the face of the residents when they find their cars gone.
So with only 2 visitors spots, it is a small complex of units?
Why are only the owners who rent their units out getting special treatment? If I was looking at a unit in a complex that had in writing that only those units that were rented out could have access to the visitors car spots I would look elsewhere. And what if another unit, or two, decides to rent theirs out? They may cry fowl because you let them park there and not us!
Send out the notices to comply. If you rent or buy an apartment with only one car spot and you need two or three, you should have thought about that and found somewhere with more garages. I have seen potential buyers coming to this complex, looking at the places with one garage and then pointing over to the visitors spots, smiling and nodding. And bingo, they move in to the unit, and they move into the visitors car spot.
We did have many years ago some residents complain because they had more cars than car spaces or needed extra parking etc and why can’t they use the visitors car spots. So we did suggest that we look into owners being able to have use of the spots and this would be offered to owners in order of their purchase date into the complex. This was not greeted well as those residents who wanted the visitors spots had only just moved in and didn’t want those who had been here since year dot to have use of the visitors spots! That wouldn’t be fair! That guy who has been here 10 years only has one car, why should he be allowed to park there! Well, why shouldn’t he?
Though the structure of the carport benefits all four proprietors, the placement of the one supporting pole would be of benefit of one, being the one on the end, if moving this post allows easier entry/egress to their parking space.
If the post is not moved so that it is over common property, does it still allow the owner access, albeit difficult access? Then again, if the post is within the car space and not offset and the owner knocks and damages it whilst attempting to park, then it would be the OC that has to wear the cost!
Though not familiar with the licence approach, it would seem to me that this placement may well have to be on the shoulders of the one owner if they want easy access and if the OC is to be protected in the future!
I absolutely agree that firm action must be taken against this owner for making his own changes to common property. We had an owner who changed he common property area outside his unit because he apparently didn’t like it and thought his change was much better. Some of the bleeding hearts on the EC did think of just letting it go. But common sense prevailed when it was brought to their attention that it would be a free for all in the complex with all owners changing what they didn’t like. If you don’t take action against one, you can’t take it against another. He was made to reinstate at his own cost.
Despite taking action against this owner and getting him to reinstate the common property, he went and did it again elsewhere, and the EC went and took a action again. But thankfully, other owners have taken notice and we have had no changes to common property since.
Bev29 your original posts asked about the process to remove pets because someone who was home a lot complained about noticing pets in common areas during the day. So is this person the same one who has done all you have listed and is also an EC member? If so, he could be found vexatious. This paints a totally different picture. Any complaints he makes may be seen differently if he also makes outrageous claims and accusations. Any notices to comply that are issued without the proper procedures followed are not worth the paper they ware written on. If pets are allowed in the complex and pet owners follow the by laws in regards to their keeping they will not be giving him much to complain about anyway.
The process is not that difficult. First to mediation, then to CTTT for ruling. Though those couple of days may be spread over a few months.
And no I don’t do any of the things you list above but i do notice repeated breches of by laws being home most days. And being home most days I used to collect mail for those away, take delivery of parcels, let tradespeople in and even clean and do odd jobs around the complex. But that was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Can’t be bothered for people who can’t be bothered . Don’t do that any more. Suits me. More time to enjoy the serenity.
I find it a problem that when one takes matters to mediation/CTTT that all their details are included in the forms. And that the forms ae then distributed to everyone. Then you find a situation like this, where lubs is just looking for clarification and something to be done, being harassed by other owners. I have a friend who has a case which is now before the CTTT. He had no idea that his details would be sent to all until he was contacted by another owner. Fortunately in this case it was in support of his plight.
From what I have learnt from flat chat, if these stairs have always been there, and the OC hasn’t had a problem with their existence before they needed maintenance, and there is no special by law or exclusive use by law stating they are the responsibility of the owner, then one would reasonably think that they would be the responsibility of the OC. And if such special by laws existing these would have been pointed out during the purchase process surely.
As for the phone calls, let your answering machine take the calls. Perhaps they will leave a message that you can use as evidence of harrassment should this behavior continue. I have been fortunate enough to have neighbours who self incriminate. It’s like winning lotto.
I am someone who, unlike everyone else, is home during most days. Other residents complain about my niggling and nosiness. However, if everyone did the right thing, I would have nothing to notice. It would seem that some people think they can break a bylaw during the day because no one should be there to see it, they should be out at work.
People who are in their homes everyday perhaps experience more incidences where the peaceful enjoyment of their homes is disturbed by those who do not think the rules apply because no one is, or should be around. I know this has been the case for me with some residents in this complex.
Pets are the only things I have not had to complain about. Their owners are responsible. Dogs are walked daily and are on leash, cats in this complex are kept inside, which btw is the only way to keep cats off common property.
Also btw, I do work. But I am home most days of the week much to the chagrine of my neighbours. There are many ways in which people work these days. From home, part time, casual and that new fangled thing called the Internet. So many more opportunities for residents to be in their homes and to notice what is happening around them.
It isn’t compulsory for a complex to have a SM. You can opt for self managed. And a complex con decide on what powers their SM has (eg they can be authorized to issue NTC)
I think that if you choose to be self managed or want total control with SM implementing, then a compulsory course in strata management may be beneficial. Not only would those on the EC be more informed but I may deter those who think that being to the committee is enough and they can just sit in their units and not do anything, ever.
Personally, I would like to have a SM who had more authority and responsibility. Of course owners need to be brought in to decide on any proposed changes to common property or individual units. And an EC would be needed for contact purposes. In the past our SM has stepped in wherre they believe there is a safety issue for residents or general public coming into the complex. They didnt wait for EC approval – they knew that to get all members to reply usually took weeks! At best they could get half of them, at worse just me!
If our SM had more authority, the current maintenance issues in this complex would not exist. They are on common property outside of unit lots. Repairs would not require a change to the look of the complex. Repairs would negate any further damage. And best of all, the SM could address the few rogue parkers who still exist in this complex with a NTC. Which would include issuing such to our esteemed EC.
Of course the SM would charge more for this increased service. But then our EC’s procrastination on getting anything done will cost more to owners too, as the maintenance issues get worse and the list gets longer.
When I was on the EC we used to have a glass of wine plus chips, biscuits and dip as well as water tea and coffee on hand. Meetings were usually held in the evening after EC members returned home from work. Meetings were over and done with in an hour. Those who partook of the wine only had a glass. And sure there was some chit chat as well, generally as we waited to see who showed up and after as we finished our drinks. Held on week nights, no one lingered.
It was quite social. In a way it was almost enjoyable to give up our own time for free. And the minutes were taken, the work decided on and matters delegated where necessary. Everything was handled, maintenance attended to, follows ups actioned. But that was in the days when residents were all like minded, proactive, sensible, social and really wanted the best for the complex and all residents.
I don’t know that any meetings have been held in this year. I know the last couple had no wine or any drinks at all. Nothing that is discussed gets done, no maintenance and for the past couple of years matters are still on the agenda each AGM and will probably be so next year. So did the wine hurt when it was the most productive time of this complex?
I am no longer on the committee. Now I just drink the wine so I can bear living here.
I am no fan of Strata Managers, however our SM could not have known when they took on the management of this complex that aspects of its construction did not meet Building Codes or Australian Standards. It was not until someone was injured (not permanently or seriously) on common property and the experts were called out that this was discovered. So let this thread be about people being able to live in a home that believe will be safe.
I read on a blog this morning that of the new blocks built since 2000 some 85% have reported defects and of these some 75% are still awaiting a satisfactory resolution. If 85% of a car brand were defective the government would have them do a recall and recitify. If I bought a brand of lamp and they were 85% defective same thing. I bought a new LCD TV and was phoned a week later to be advised that it had a fault and I had to return it immediately.
But I can buy a new home, with government help, find faults, find no help and then have to find the money to fix it myself.
This building was only new at four years old. When something is new you quite rightly expect it to be better, safer. I have a four year old car. It’s just a small car but has every safety feature known to mankind to keep myself and others safe. I would expect nothing less for a new car these days. How can a building not have every safety feature known built in?
One can only imagine how many more casualties there would have been had this taken place in the middle of the night. At 25 metres tall no sprinklers but at 26 metres there are sprinklers. What a joke. There would be the same number of people in this building if it were 26 metres tall. Perhaps we need a star safety rating for new apartment blocks. We have one for cars. Just as one might pick a five star car to commute, could pick a five star building to live. Something has to happen. One life lost is one too many.