Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Good response.
I used to work as a government auditor, and I have a lot of experience in auditing whether particular staff have a conflict of interest and whether it was handled correctly if they do.
There is nothing inherently “bad” in a conflict of interest – no one should ever be afraid or declaring one. What is “bad” is if someone has a conflict and doesn’t declare it because that means others involved in voting don’t know the full situation so they are voting based on partial information.
If you find you can’t vote for a refund, can you instead vote for a substantial (temporary) reduction in levies to offset the amount paid? Effectively you’d be treating the special levy as an advance payment against quarterly levies. I have no idea if this is allowed – just searching for ideas.
Different situation here because no loan was involved but I live in a building where a special levy was raised on only five of six apartments. One apartment had done some extensive renovations (at own expense but with OC approval) that included changing the nature of balcony windows. Five years later, the OC decided to do the same to all the other balcony windows in the building. It was deemed unfair for the lot owner who had paid for her own window work to then pay the special levy for everyone else’s work, so a by-law was developed excusing her from the special levy and handing responsibility for ongoing maintenance of her windows back to the OC. The special levy was paid by five owners. The work was completed on five sets of balcony windows. The OC is now responsible for ongoing maintenance of the windows on all six apartments.
We have a similar issue unfolding in our building. Owners bought a year ago and asked to do cosmetic renovations. We gave them a list of what they could and could not do and made it clear that they couldn’t touch common property without coming back to the Committee with full plans and a draft by-law. They did the renovations but then refused entry to anyone to inspect. OK.
Later in the year – more renovations – no permission asked, none granted. Relations between all the owners in the building were a bit tentative, so no one requested an inspection and no one had the stomach to go to NCAT and get an order for an inspection.
They are about to sell so we have minuted in our most recent Committee meeting (they are now members of the Committee but did not attend the recent meeting) that the OC will inspect prior to sale. I’ve bought the popcorn already and I’m sitting back waiting for the fireworks. We may need an order from NCAT for an inspection. Or we can use the open-for-inspection period to do our own inspection and walk around loudly talking to each other about any illegal renovations we spot.
To be fair, they requested and received permission to install aircon. We bent over backwards to accommodate that request which has gone some way to thawing frosty relations.
Some years ago, my building underwent renovations that extended beyond the expected finish date (surprise!) and everyone in the building looked at scaffolding instead of a harbour view throughout the summer. My tenants complained and demanded compensation and we enlisted the help of our managing agent to agree on an appropriate amount, which I paid.
In hindsight, I should have turned to the Owners’ Corporation and asked them to stump up. The renovations caused a flood in one of the apartments and the affected owner demanded new carpet (and got it). But that was before I started tuning in to FlatChat and learned sooo much more. If this happened again, I would first approach the OC and if they said “no” I would wait for the tenants to initiate mediation.
I agree with Jimmy that your tenants may be serial complainers and if you give compensation (whether paid by you or the person or persons responsible for the noise) you may unleash a hungry beast.
Some people are so worried about what a block of flats looks like, they forget that people actually live there. I don’t think a pile of shoes outside a door is attractive, but is it the end of the earth? And if it is (and it may well be if we’re talking about two pairs for each member of a family of four) then require them to be placed in a neat box or on a shoe rack, or require them to be kept inside the front door of the apartment or carried through to their balcony for outdoor storage.
Removing shoes at the door is a cultural practice and wearing “outdoor shoes” inside the front door is highly offensive in some cultures. In Australia, we don’t think much about whether the soles of our shoes have been exposed to dog pee or other gross substances on the grass outside. But in some cultures, dog pee on shoes would be considered absolutely disgusting. So it’s important to be sensitive when addressing this issue.
Why would there be a detriment to others if the OP buys the land and maintains it? Wouldn’t everyone benefit from the uplift in the appearance of the building? The land has no commercial value to anyone else in the building, especially in its current condition.
Maybe what you mean is that the others experience a detriment because the OC loses control over the land, and the opportunity to make it look nice. If that’s what you meant, then OP would have to fight the OC to make them do their job – and I don’t know enough about the Victorian strata laws to know what the OC’s responsibilities are in this regard.
Even if he has an enduring power of attorney, that can be overlooked when the strata manager changes. All it does is give him permission to act on behalf of the owner. It doesn’t mean his name gets added to the list of owners to receive notices. He’s reliant on the strata manager to remember that he has EPO, or, in the case of a new strata manager,to check their records without being asked to (which let’s face it, isn’t going to happen).
I’ve never seen a by-law where the OC eventually takes back responsibility for work completed by an owner. These are your tradespeople doing work that you want done to your property and you are the person managing and supervising that work. In every bylaw I’ve ever seen, responsibility passes to you as soon as the work begins.
The renovator may not know that a by-law is needed, so the Committee should not “assume” that these will be provided. In fact, the Committee should specify what is to be covered in the by-law to ensure the protection of other owners.
A single by-law can cover a full renovation with separate clauses for aircon, electrics etc.
The by-law should be as specific as it needs to be. It may be tested in the tribunal one day, so you don’t want to leave wriggle-room for the renovator to get out of his or her responsibilities. My building prepared a by-law recently giving all apartments permission to install aircon with the external units mounted on common property. The by-law included photographs, one for each lot, showing where the units could be mounted. It also included requirements for how the units should be attached, what materials could be used for attaching and what colour the external units should be, plus hours that trades could work. This is for a by-law that might not be used by some lots for another 10 years.My building has two apartments with existing aircon units attached illegally to common property, two owners who said they would “never” want to install one and two owners who asked permission to install them with the external unit on the roof. We decided to develop a by-law specifying the precise location where each lot could install its external unit. These locations matched the location of the two existing (illegal) units, nominated locations for the “never” units (with their input) and covered off the roof requests. It also covered ongoing maintenance, required materials and construction, hours and other conditions for tradespeople working, replacement units, damage to other lots, right to Committee to inspect work etc. Effectively it gives all lots permission to install aircon without having to seek permission – all they have to do is provide documents to the SM to check.
I’m not sure what the problem is. Does it matter which part-owner turns up? So long as both aren’t there and holding up the meeting by disagreeing with each other, why do you care which of these two owners is at the meeting?
This may be my ignorance – in a jointly-held property, do the joint owners have to nominate which of the joint owners will attend meetings and vote? That doesn’t happen in my scheme. We accept attendance by any one owner of any property. Spouses frequently decide on the day of the meeting who can attend based on work commitments.We’ve been through this a few times in my 6-lot building and in every case the lot owner wanting to renovate pays all costs associated with the application. Recent applicant told me it cost him about $1000 to get his approval prepared and through the Committee. that’s chicken-feed compared with the cost of the Reno.
The one exception was when two lots owned by the same person raised the possibility of installing aircon. We decided to prepare an aircon bylaw that would cover all six lots. The strata manager sent me a few model bylaws and to reduce cost, I adapted one of those to suit our needs. I got the Committee to check it over at every step so when it came time to vote, it sailed through. Everyone shared the cost of that exercise, including the two lot owners who said they had no interest in aircon.Sorry but I’m having trouble understanding the situation. Perhaps you have a typo in the sentence that includes both the words “sought” and “seek”. Please clarify what the Committee has asked one owner to do and who wants who to pay for what.
In general, it’s reasonable to assume that a Committee has discussed options for moving forward and pros and cons of each. So you can ask someone on the Committee what was discussed and how the Committee arrived at a decision. If there was no such discussion between Committee members, you’d have to wonder if there is a one-person show with conflicts of interest going on. But first, please clarify your question and then we can respond in a more useful way.