Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Do you mean that you will lose the levies in arrears because there will be nothing left from the sale after the secured creditors are paid? That sucks. We were lucky recently that after a forced sale (following bankruptcy proceedings) and the banks were paid there was enough left to cover the unpaid levies. We were told that our only other option would have been to sue the errant owner, and we’d already had him in bankruptcy court.
Is this a hypothetical, or are you asking because you are in this situation?
In the situation you describe, I’d say it’s an OC responsibility, but I’d be making an insurance claim if the issue is caused by a split copper pipe. We made a successful insurance claim for that same scenario. Turned out to be a bit less-than-successful though as we now struggle to get anyone to insure us.
The insurance issue aside, OCs need to be making provision for building repairs, and repairs that involve water always seem to have a lot of damage. But the owner also needs to be fair. If the original bathroom was somewhat basic, with laminate cabinetry and painted walls, then the owner can’t demand stone bench tops and full tiling. The insurer will only pay out to replace to the same standard and that should be the OCs position too. The owner should pay to “top up” if they want to take the opportunity for an upgrade with additional lighting, spa bath, tiles to ceiling etc.
Quite possibly, however the Committee has a responsibility to all the lot owners to ensure the OC is not paying more than is necessary. In my role as Committee Chair I would get the Committee to engage its own plumber or builder to do an inspection and confirm this split of responsibility. I would also require a Committee member to be present during the inspection to ensure the lot owner doesn’t try to influence the Committee’s inspector. And I would insist on at least two quotes for any work that the OC is paying for. If the lot owner wants the OC to pay, then he has to expect the Committee to play an active role in clarifying the scope of work, the cost of work and who does the work. Also, if the OC is taking ongoing responsibility for this work, then the OC has to take some responsibility for who does the work and to what quality. If the lot owner wants to choose his own workers (dodgy unlicensed plumber married to his cousin maybe?) then he can pay and he can take responsibility for ongoing maintenance. You’ll probably need a by-law for these renovations BTW. The by-law should include details of the work to be done, who is doing it, hours of work, who is paying, who is responsible going forward etc etc. your strata manager may have model by-laws to get you started, or a strata lawyer can draw one up. Cost of by-law – I suggest split between lot owner and OC in the proportion of cost of work.
Have you checked the contract you have with your strata manager? Some SMs seem cheaper but they charge for ad-hoc services (such as providing documents) while other SMs charge higher fees that include more services, some of which you might not need as often as other OCs.
This is not a strictly legal answer, but your SM works for the OC, not the other way round. The OC made its wishes known when it voted for the new by-law. So stand your ground. The recalcitrant owner can take you to NCAT and argue that he/she wants to install aircon under an outdated by-law with no documentation. Good luck to him or her.
BTW I recently assisted an owner who objected strongly to providing documentation for a renovation. Turned out that the owner simply didn’t understand what was required so I made a list and ticked off each document as it was provided. Once the owner saw this structure and had a list to work through, the documents started to appear. Owner also didn’t know how to look up trades’ licenses so I did that for her. Took a bit of time, but we got there in the end. I actually felt sorry for her once I realised that her aggression and refusal to comply stemmed from feeling out of her depth and not up to the task.
Your terminology is confusing to me; perhaps you use different terms in Victoria. By “Ballot” do you mean a vote to approve the aircon unit?
I don’t know the rules in Victoria, so I don’t know if this is a Committee decision to make, or a decision that the entire Body Corp gets involved in. I presume from your post that the entire Body Corp gets to vote.
Anything that is sent out for a vote should include information about the proposal. Presumably the owner of the lot that wants the aircon will put this together along with information about the trades involved, where and when the work will take place and a statement about why they need it. I don’t see why the Committee can’t correspond with the owners to explain why the Committee thinks the proposal is a bad idea (noise, appearance, water runoff etc).
But a better approach might be for the Committee to work with the lot owner to find a more suitable solution.
BTW in NSW if someone gets permission to instal an airconditioner on common property, they need a by-law. They can’t modify common property without one. And the lot owners pays all the legal fees associated with developing and registering that by-law.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The Estate is the owner of the three units, although perhaps that has to be confirmed via probate.
Why don’t you delay the AGM until after probate? A call to Fair Trading would sort out whether that’s a reasonable thing to do. In fact, my strata plan just delayed the AGM because someone was on holidays so I’m sure it happens all the time without someone from Fair Trading arriving with a wrecking ball to demolish the building because your AGM wasn’t held on time.
Just make sure the other owner is ok with it, and make your lives easy. Delay and if any urgent issues arise, such as an insurance renewal, deal with those via email.
Is one of the two owners that wants the lift on the Committee? That’s the only way I can see that this could have happened. My building has external features on some apartments and not on others (eg balconies) and everyone has to pay for upgrades to those because they improve the appearance of the entire block. But a lift doesn’t improve anything for anyone other than those living on the upper floor of that one block. I think all three apartments should pay for it as all three will benefit. But strata should not. And if one of the owners doesn’t want it, then he/she needs to get others in the building on side to vote down the project. It’s a change to common space, so would need to go to a vote.
I wonder if anyone has considered who will pay the ongoing maintenance fees for this lift. A two-story maintenance contract is likely to be $2-3K per year, indexed to CPI.
So do you own this, or have you only put a deposit on at this stage? If you want to get out of the contract, can your solicitor help you on the basis that the true nature of the property was not properly disclosed? I’m wondering if Council is aware that this structure was built in that airspace. If the structure required Council approval and doesn’t have it, I’d have thought that might be grounds for getting out of your contract and getting your deposit back. Also, the penthouse has been built on top of a strata building, is that right? That would have changed the original roof, which is common property. So where is the by-law giving approval for that? If your solicitor is not skilled enough for this fight, I suggest you engage someone with more experience. There is a notion of “buyer beware” but there is also a responsibility on the vendor not to hide important information.
It’s worth asking the “cold feet crew” to explain their concerns. There was a view around some time ago that NCAT was an expensive exercise with little chance of a good outcome for anyone. I believe it has been substantially reformed and it’s more financially accessible these days. $256 would barely pay for someone to run a vaccuum over your common areas – it’s not a lot of money.
So are they concerned because in their eyes NCAT=expensive? Or are they concerned that you don’t have a good case and you might be asking for something unreasonable (and therefore lose)?
If it’s any help, I spent the first six months of this year navigating unapproved renovations in 2 of the 6 apartments in our block. Rather than demand that the renovations were reversed (which would have taken us into NCAT), we chose instead to demand that the owners had the renovations assessed by an engineer and fire safety people. The lot owners agreed to do this, because they didn’t want to go to NCAT either. These various assessments resulted in a number of expensive updates to the renovations, but the substantive work (which actually improved their apartments and made no difference to the appearance of common property) passed all the tests. Regrettably, the unapproved work included them installing equipment in the roof cavity, which is common area. But overall we decided that this wasn’t serious enough to be bothered chasing it to NCAT, and the roof cavity work eventually passed all the fire safety and engineering tests. My point being, not all unapproved renovations need to be reversed – it really depends on how you all feel about what has been done. But make sure you pass a resolution that the OC does not take responsibility for any damage to common property caused by the unapproved renovations, and that any damages are the responsibility of Lot X to repair. Lot X won’t vote in favour of this, but everyone else should. In our case, we passed this kind of resolution and eventually, after all the fire safety and engineering assessments came back clean, we approved the renovations and the lot owners registered a by-law. We also made sure we had a record of all the trades they had used with license numbers and contact details, and warranties for all work. Same as if they had got the renovations approved in the first place.
Of course, if the unapproved renovations in your building are unbearable to you all – perhaps they have painted their balcony bright pink, or built a sub-structure in the common area, then you’ll have no choice but to go to NCAT and work through the process. It’s my understanding that a majority committee vote is enough for you to proceed, but someone else will know this for sure.
So to your original question – there is no law that says you can’t contact the SM.