Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’m curious, do all balconies in the complex have to be replaced, or is the 20 a subset? And is the work urgent?
Our (smaller) building had a big project a few years back and we chose to increase levies for two years and save for the project, spreading the less pain over a longer period. That worked for us and we were fortunate that no other urgent project came up that would have forced us to use the saved funds for a different, more time-critical, purpose.
Both your proposed funding options would not have this same risk as the money would have to be spent on the balcony project.
You could possibly do two special levies – half to fund the start of the project and then another half to fund the completion.
You need to factor in non-payment by one or more owners. It can take a while for a formal collections process to run its course – does your CWF have enough to pay your builders if a couple of owners don’t pay up and you have to chase them for the funds? We had this happen on our project – 1/3 of owners got behind on the increased levies so the CWF had to cover their portion of the payments while we went through collections, bankruptcy proceedings and finally a sale, at which time the CWF was repaid. This is a risk with both your proposed funding options – some owners may be stretched financially and have difficulty paying for this. But I’m sure you know that already.
If you haven’t made any changes yourself, then you appear to be talking about a building defect (because that water should drain away) or a blockage of some kind. Either way, it’s the OC’s responsibility to fix it. If the meeting at which you mentioned it was minutes (ie “formal”) then you have given them ample time. I’d do what was suggested to the OP – let them know you are proceeding to NCAT based on their failure to maintain common property. The first step at NCAT is mediation. You may be able to help your performance in mediation by getting a couple of quotes. That way, everyone knows the $$ involved and you’re all mediating over the same amount. Make sure any outcome includes a date by which the repair will be started.
Tenant asks owner to do this work (presumably via the letting agent). If owner is supportive, owner applies for permission from the OC. Strata manager can help the OC out by gathering all necessary documents from the owner. This may include plumber licenses, warranties and insurances. Owner may also need a by-law. When the OC has given approval (after reviewing these documents), the owner can arrange the work – the role of the letting agent may be to arrange and manage the installation if that’s what the owner wants.
Note that I’m in NSW so some terms and practices may be different.
That’s what our strata manager (NSW) told us. I’m in a building of 6 and everyone is on the Committee. We usually agree to spend money by a quick round-up of views on email. The SM (a professional group that seems to know it’s stuff) has said that we don’t need formal votes to agree to spend money – there may be a limit on that.
I usually keep a copy of those emails and who said what, just in case someone queries it later. But in most cases, an email from the Chair or Secretary seems to be enough for the SM to pay the invoice, even if there has been no formal meeting or resolution.
Given that’s how we operate, I think it would be helpful for a prospective owner to talk to Committee members and find out what projects are currently underway, what might happen next year, what contracts are causing us problems and so on.
Property manager has a conflict of interest in this – they get more fees if the rent goes up. But at the end of the day, you have the contract with the tenant, the property manager does not. So it should be up to you.
You’re probably aware of the pitfalls of not keeping up with market rent – you get further and further behind and then you realise you’re not covering your costs and it takes a massive jump to catch up (which is not really fair on the tenant, even if they have been paying under market rent for some time). So in some ways the property manager has valid reasons (beyond self-interest) to try and keep you up with market rent.
But if you want to carry that risk, that’s your decision, not the decision of the property manager, who works for you.
It’s worthwhile knocking on a few doors of other small blocks and asking them for referrals, or if you are in one of those facebook groups called “<Suburb Name> Living” or similar, ask on there.
I’m in a small block and we’ve been very happy with our strata manager, but recently they merged into a larger outfit and we’re starting to see signs of “corporate” strata, such as different departments within the strata company that don’t communicate well with each other (the compliance department, the contracts department etc). We have a strata manager who is supposed to be our single-point-of-contact, but quite often she can’t answer questions and outsources them to people in these other departments who we’ve never met and who don’t know if they are dealing with a small block or a mega-complex. We’re definitely experiencing an erosion in the personal level of service. Not ready to move yet, especially given how many awful stories are posted on these pages, but we’re not the happy customers that we once were.
Jimmy, you raise an interesting point about why should one owner bear more cost than the others. So let’s say that the OC decides or is forced to pay for minklet’s tenant to move into alternative accommodation for a while. What’s to stop some of the owner-occupiers then saying “but we’re disrupted too, and we’d like the OC to pay for us to move into alternative accommodation also?”
Another way to look at it is this: why does minklet get his disruption costs paid for by the OC, but the other owners don’t? All owners will ultimately benefit from this disruption, including minklet. Everyone contributes financially for the work. Some owners will “pay” extra for that disruption by living through it. In minklet’s case, he/she doesn’t live through it but instead incurs the extra costs by losing out on rent.
I don’t know what the law says here, but it seems to me that everyone is being disrupted by this work and everyone could claim compension for disruption – it’s just that in minklet’s case the disruption can more easily be calculated in financial terms. Does that really mean that he/she is more disadvantaged than the other owners?
I’ll be doing pretty much this same renovation next year. All cosmetic, but in my case I will be changing bathroom tiles. So I’ll need a by-law, but all the by-law needs to say is that the waterproofing has been done by a qualified person (I provide certification documents) and that I’m responsible for the waterproofing going forward.
I can do the right thing and extend the by-law to cover all the rest of the work to say that I have to use licensed plumbers and electricians. And I can add in the acceptable hours of work and clauses about not damaging common property and letting residents know in advance about noisy work (like removing existing tiles).
I can prepare that by-law myself based on by-laws we already have.
I’ll be submitting the by-law and all documents to the SM with advance notice, and if the Committee decides to drag it’s heels (which it will do because I’m the only one that does anything), then I’ll just start work. If anyone wants to take me to NCAT, they can do so, and I will ask for costs to cover lost rental income. My documents at NCAT will show that I am prepared and following the rules and that I have kept the other owners involved and informed for months in advance.
Even on private property, and even if you’re not touching the car? Clamping involves touching someone else’s property so that might be different. And blocking someone in on public land might be different to on private property. If someone parks in my driveway (private home) then I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to park in behind them.
Think about it this way – if this was a stand-alone house, you’d be dealing directly with the builder and any costs would be borne by yourself or the builder. If your neighbour was doing disruptive work, you’d have Buckley’s chance of getting compensation for a disgruntled tenant.
if you think the strata committee bears some responsibility for the delay, then raise your issue with them and try your luck, but I don’t really see why it’s up to all your neighbours/co-owners to fund your loss of rent if they are not culpable.
My suggestion is to offer a relatively short lease (eg 6 months) at a below-market rate. These leases are often taken up by people who are renovating their own homes and need a short-term temporary home. If the lease specifies that they will be subject to renovation disruption during their tenancy, in return for a below-market rent, then you have less chance that they’ll try for more compensation. Plus they only have to put up with it for a short time. You could also say that if it’s unbearable, they can break their lease with none of the usual penalties.
remember, YOU get to choose who rents your place. So choose someone who seems to understand the situation.
There are bollard things you can install in the ground and then raise or lower. These are normally used to keep people out of certain parking spaces but I don’t see why they can’t be used to trap someone into a visitor space if they’ve over-stayed their welcome. Hunting down a Committee member to unlock the space would lose its novelty pretty quickly and you might find compliance improves. Obviously you’d also need signage.
I’m with Quirky. If you’re doing basic and necessary things like re-waterproofing a leaky bathroom, updating kitchen fittings and re-carpeting then I’d be moving forward. I’d make sure I had all the usual documents (qualifications/certifications of tradespeople etc) and I’d be making sure no noisy work took place outside 8am-5pm. Let’s say your OC takes you to NCAT because you didn’t wait for formal permission. If your approach has been thoughtful and generous towards other residents, you haven’t messed with common property and you’ve done everything by the book, the Committee is going to come out of it looking bad, not you. Make sure you keep records of your communications with the Committee.
“Your laundry by-law could state that the communal laundry room is only available to lots which do not otherwise provide laundry facilities. This could potentially invalidate the by-law by being “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” (sections 139, 150), so it may be a good idea to have a strata lawyer draft the by-law to minimise that risk.”
Quirky makes a good point here. Even if a lot has it’s own laundry facility, the owner/resident might want to use the communal laundry if their washing machine breaks down, or if they have a lot of people staying over. So communicating and asking the opinion of all owners is important because you’d be removing a facility that is currently available to everyone.
I don’t know the law here, so someone might chime in with a better response grounded in law. I would say that if this issue only affects four lots, then have a conversation with those four lot owners about whether they want to continue with the coin-op system or buy their own machines. If the units are tenanted, they may have leases that state that a shared laundry is available for their tenants, so that could cause some issues and costs for the lot owners. They might also be concerned that personal washing machines located in a common laundry could be problematic (ie you go to the laundry and find someone else’s clothes in your machine, or the machine is damaged). If I was a lot owner relying on a communal coin-op laundry, I’d appreciate a lengthy period of notice to give me time to renovate my unit, change my lease or make whatever other arrangements are needed.
I am Chair of a strata committee and I did not receive this survey either. We have a strata manager that we really like, but a few things have happened recently that make me think it’s time to look at a few others.