Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
That’s true, but not relevant to this question. Stratalearner didn’t buy a house with a balcony, he/she bought a flat where the balcony is part of common property, not his/her own. And he/she is not allowed to go ahead and fix it without permission of the OC. And in any case, it’s the OC that is supposed to fix it – they are funded (by the owners) to do these things.
Hmmm. I think your earlier by-law covers you for the work and passing on responsibility, but the strata manager brings up a point that the solar tubes might need to be registered on title. I don’t know if this is correct, but hopefully someone else on this forum will know. Presumably that would be an additional step beyond registering the by-law and you’d need to do it for all of the solar tubes, not just the latest one. I can’t see that it would require another vote. If your earlier by-law was drawn up and then registered by a lawyer, I’d contact that lawyer and ask whether the solar tubes need to be registered on title. If the lawyer says no, then you have your response for the SM.
1 user thanked author for this post.
30 years ago I lived near a McDonalds that backed onto a carpark. A group of teens regularly hung around the back door of the McDonalds, leaving their fast food wrappers scattered about when they left. The store manager rigged up a speaker and started playing classical music (loudly) whenever the kids appeared. Problem solved. They found somewhere else to hang out. If your friend’s window opens, I suggest she makes use of Spotify or ABC Classical Radio and treats the street to a short concert. Perhaps she’ll have similar success.
1 user thanked author for this post.
These days, your strata committee can’t unreasonably refuse you the right to have a pet (or pets). If your foster cats are confined to your property and not bothering anyone else, then I think it would be unreasonable to expect you to pay $100 for each and every foster pet.
You asked. You paid. They didn’t refuse. If they decide to take you the Tribunal I think you’d have good arguments for saying you thought their response implied permission. But in the first instance they would have to send you a Notice to Comply – which refers to compliance with a by-law that is no longer strictly legal. So if it were me, I’d be taking care of those foster cats and not applying every time. You already applied.
1 user thanked author for this post.
So here’s a scenario that could happen if the non-financial owners were allowed to vote.
in the building next to mine, a wealthy couple bought up more than half the units over a period of time and gained control of the strata. They then set about renovating common areas with imported Italian tiles, sculptures, fancy light fittings and so on. The other owners all had to finance their share of this with no hope of voting down the extravagance (which only one couple wanted).
Now let’s say the wealthy couple was not paying levies. In your preferred scenario, they could still vote for all this spending without contributing a cent and the other owners would be funding it all.
I accept that’s an unusual situation where one owner controls the strata, but in many buildings you get voting blocks and cartels that work together to control strata. Should they be able to do that and vote for expensive upgrades while not contributing?
One way or another, the owners are paying for this, whether it’s a direct $275 each, or via the OC which means that owners with larger unit entitlements pay a bit more and others pay less. The fairest way seems to me to be that each owner pays the same as this is a direct benefit to the individual apartments, and the benefit to each apartment is the same. If your building has internet-enabled services in the common areas then you could argue that portion of the cost should be split via unit entitlements, but for such a small amount that doesn’t seem worthwhile.
Let’s not forget the flow-on effect of these costs to renters, who are increasingly noisy about rent inflation. Compliance costs create upward pressure on the costs associated with investment properties, which inevitably make their way through to the cost of renting.
Many property investors will try to absorb costs rather than increase rents and lose a good tenant. But eventually the costs reach a point where the investor has to sell or increase rents. And we talk of “investors” as if they are trying to make money out of renters. Many are not. They are making their property available for rent while they work interstate or overseas, or while they wait to sell a property that’s tied up in a deceased estate. But they can’t afford to do that if the rent doesn’t cover the expenses.1 user thanked author for this post.
As you are responsible for repairs and maintenance, I think you are lucky the OC didn’t hit you up for the cost of re-waterproofing your portion of the space. Maybe just accept the cost of new tiles and treat yourself to the tiles of your choice.
We’ve caught ours out once or twice charging us for a service that we voted at the AGM not to pay for. (Eg an annual audit, which is not always required for our small scheme). When challenged, the fee was reversed. Maybe it was intended for a different strata scheme and was inadvertently charged to us. We’ll never know. We do have access to tax invoices and I check the quarterly statements fairly carefully. Invoices are loaded onto our portal so I could do a reconciliation between that and the statement, but I don’t. I’m more inclined to do a “reasonableness check” of the statement. But we must be getting close to the day when I can use an AI tool to compare the invoices on the portal to the charges on the statement. And the AI tools already available should help strata managers to provide more detail with minimal extra effort.
How serious is the breach? If it caused damage that someone has to pay for, or a fire risk, then I can see why you want to pursue it. But if it’s something like parking their bike in an inconvenient spot, then a conversation might be the first step, with a move to more formal actions if the person proves to be intransigent. Not everyone is aware of the detail in the by-laws.
You should be able to rely on your quantity surveyor, so it’s a shame that you can’t. I usually test prices through informal channels:friends and family, forums I’m on and so on. Usually there is someone out there who has done similar work before. If you see a trade that you’re going to need doing work in another building, ask someone in the building what they paid. Why would they be secretive about that? And by striking up a conversation, you might develop a network of people who refer good trades to each other and share information that is more accurate than the info you’re getting from the QS. By the way, has anyone told the QS about the estimates in his work that were so inaccurate? How is he going to know and improve if you don’t? I’m not suggesting the work of a QS is easy. We had a piece of work done last year that was quoted at $32K by a local electrician on Sydney’s northern beaches. Same piece of work was quoted at $17K by an electrician from Sydney’s Western suburbs who had to travel for more than hour each day to get to the job. How can a QS give accurate estimates when quotes vary by that much?
A sign-off sheet?
Is there is already a by-law in place that says that the owners of the roof-access apartments are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the the roof? If not, no sign-up sheet will override the principal that all owners (not just the roof-access apartment owners) are responsible for maintaining common property.
If there is already a by-law in place that says that the owners of the roof-access apartments are responsible for maintenance of the roof, then the sign-up sheet might just be clarifying that you all understand this; a kind of preparation for the work and associated cost that is coming your way.
The only reason I can think of that the owners of the roof-access apartments might be responsible for maintenance of the roof is that those owners (current or past) might have made modifications or done something on the roof, and when that happened a by-law was created saying that the owners of those apartments would be responsible for the roof maintenance going forward. So check the existing by-laws and if there is nothing there relating to the roof, don’t take on that responsibility.
For all the Committee knows, your brother could be a FIFO worker or airline employee who comes and goes and shares your flat when he’s in town. You’ve probably told them differently, but the FIFO scenario is not materially different to your actual situation. You’re entitled to have a tenant and your tenant is entitled to access the facilities. As Jimmy has suggested, formalise the tenancy and then start proceedings towards mediation on the grounds that they are denying access to your legitimate tenant. If you have a SM, you might ask that person to intervene also. If the SM is any good, he or she will know the law around tenancy rights in strata.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I recall from when we were dealing with this that the arrears are passed to the new owner, who is then liable for the unpaid levies. But our strata manager warned us that a savvy buyer might have a clause in the sale contract saying that they are not liable for unpaid levies, in which case the OC would have to sue the previous owner.
I contacted the selling agent and made sure he knew the levies were in arrears. I figured he would have some disclosure requirements and that was the best thing I could do to help our cause. I don’t know if it was the agent or the solicitor who told the buyer about the arrears – but they were paid so all is well.