[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the detailed reply Jimmy.

I will look it over in carefully and get back with questions, which I’ll surely have.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Kaindub,

Thanks for the reply and appologies for my late feedback.

FYI, at the rear of the unit (also known as a “townhouse” in the strata plan) is a patio and beyond and beneath the patio  is the garden. Stairs connect the patio to the garden, which is some 2-3 meters the patio.

In response to your detailed post, note:
I found the following text on a strata plan diagram

Quote

All areas are approximate, courtyards on basement level are limited in height to 3 meters above and in depth to 3 meters below of the upper surface of the adjoining town house ground floor slab.

Unquote

Furthermore, a drawing of the lots shows shows in the rear of two lots, mine and a neighbour, a thick black line extending from the rear patio partially into the garden. This is exactly where the stairs are located.

Are these two facts proof that stairs are OC responsibility?

Thank you in advance.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Thank you Kaindub, your guidance is much appreciated.

[TrulEConcerned]

Permit me to relate a recent episode of mine.

In a small block of units, most units are on the ground floor. Each ground floor unit has an on-title garden accessed by a wooden gate used only by the respective lot.

My wooden gate needed repairs last March (the latch was broken and some wood was rotting away). I wrote to the strata committee, who ignored my email as did the agent. After chasing them up they acknowledged my email, three months after I sent it, but continued to drag their collective feet for months.

I took the committee to Fair Trading’s Mediation service (which costs nothing and an agreement  b/w the parties is non binding BUT is a necessary prerequisite to applying to NCAT) and argued:

1) The gate is an original fixture (therefore “common property”);

2) The committee members had their gates repaired noting on the tradesman’s invoice that the gates  “common property”; and

3) So why the alleged change in ownership? Or are non committee members treated differently?

The committee (at Mediation) tried to worm their way out of repairing my gate claiming ‘yes some gates were repaired by the OC, but since then we changed the by laws and now no gates are common property’.

I replied ‘that is a lie. No such change in by law was made’. My claim was not disproved.

The Mediator chimed in saying “even if a change in by law was made, which I am not sure it was, such a change has no effect as the gates are original fixtures and hence the responsibility of the OC to repair and maintain”.

What was even more interesting is that while the OC through clenched teeth agreed in writing at Mediation to repair the gate by late last year, they failed miserably to do so and to NCAT off I go.

If you’re confident the gate is “original” that is, it was not installed by a previous owner, then ask the committee repair the common property it as they have a duty to do so (s.106). And if you’re not confident, still ask the committee. If it really is not  an “original”fixture  –  meaning they have a duty to repair – they will surely tell you.

[TrulEConcerned]

I suggest you look into whether your situation is one where

(a) you can prove  (ideally multiple instances) that the owners’s corp is not acting in the interest of all owners; and

(b) whether your scheme’s situation rises to the level of being “dysfunctional”.

If  you can prove (b) then you may want to take the steps towards seeking ‘compulsory strata management’  where lot owners will have no say in the running of the scheme.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

In addition to the good comments made so far (especially yours of “cash cows”), may I suggest you ask your managing agent to email you say

” a copy of the cash payments journal for 1/01/21 to 1/12/21″. This is a 1 minute job for him to organise.

This accounting document lists ALL payments (not just cash) made by the strata; when they were made; to whom were they made and why they were made.

A review of that document by you should fill in the blanks and help you take the matter to the next step.

[TrulEConcerned]

Permit me to clarify one issue.

In my original post I wrote:

I await a copy of the building plans but suspect either

(a) It is cheaper to install pipes through the CP of neighbouring units than it is to complete the job through the renovator’s unit alone; or

(b) If indeed there are pipes crossing my unit that serviced his now defunct a/c system, then he may want new pipes to service his new a/c unit.

I have not seen the plans but the strata agent now advises that:

(1)  There are no a/c pipes in the CP above my ceiling;

(2) What happened was that the neighbour disconnected his a/c unit soon after he bought the premises, wanting to replace the a/c. Only when the disconnection took place did the neighbour realise that the a/c was not stand alone but was connected to a cooling tower system;

(3) The neighbour indicated that if  the works proceeded via only his own lot then he would be up for legal costs (and time) principally seeking an approval from the adjoining strata as some of the infrastructure will encroach on the neighbouring building;

(4) The agent confirms that this is not a situation where say electrical wires currently run via my lot to service the neighbour and the latter wants to upgrade and in turn remove current wiring (in the CP above my lot)  in favour of new wiring. This is a new service the neighbour wants to install; and

(5) The agent says that he was told by the contractor that the disconnected a/c unit cannot be made operational.

I hope the above elaboration helps readers come to an opinion. Thanks.

 

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks again. I’ll put my thinking cap on this w/end and consider my next step.

[TrulEConcerned]

Kaindub is spot on. It’s time to replace the alarm. As it is your asset and responsibility, instead of a hard wired alarm, why not get a cheaper battery only alarm that you can install in 1 minute flat?

For the record, last year I had huge issues with a strata committee who refused to maintain a fire alarm connected to a common fire board. After talking at length to NSW Fair Trading and two realtors it was made clear to all that the test for common property ownership and hence responsibility to repair and maintain is connection to a common fire board and not whether an alarm is hard wired or not.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply.

As to owners’ motions being shunted to a future general meeting, assuming I don’t get the necessary numbers to convene a general meeting to discuss my and other owners’ motions, can the Secretary choose not to have a general meeting until it suits him? Or must he convene one by a certain date?

[TrulEConcerned]

I agree with Sir Humphrey.

A separate issue comes to mind if the land is common property over which you have exclusive use. In such a case, the question is: what is the extent of the OC’s responsibility to maintain the area, regardless of whether you make use of it or not.

For instance, if it was a roof top garden that you alone had exclusive use over, the OC would be responsible to maintain the tiles, water membrane etc. The lot owner, you,  would be responsible for any structure (building it and maintaining it).

I have no idea as to what responsibilities the OC has to this patch of land, assuming it’s common property, others in here may.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

May I suggest the following essential reading

https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/neighbours-and-law

Best of luck!

 

[TrulEConcerned]

I agree with the posts above and have a suggestion.

If there is a notice posted in your building of preferred tradesmen, call that locksmith indicating you are considering changing a door lock. Ask, “what would be the fee for service call, labour and materials, after hours”?

Note that quote somewhere.

If there is no such posting of tradesmen in your building, call any locksmith in your area and ask as above.

Ideally the two quotes you receive will be close to what you were invoiced, thereby demolishing the strata’s position.

If so, offer the quotes at Mediation.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Excellent news indeed Jimmy-T. Thanks.

[TrulEConcerned]

I too am responding to the article on STHL.

I have not looked deeply into the reforms and wonder if a problem I confronted a couple of years ago has been dealt with.

In short, my tenants rented a 2 bedroom flat and one day without informing me, decided to live in one bedroom and rent the other via ABB.

When they took vacation, they rented out the whole flat.

When I discovered this, I told them that such behaviour invalidates my landlord insurance and asked them to stop. They were unmoved.

I called ABB who replied: “in such cases we stand by the hosts, as they are the ones we contract with”. I made clear that the hosts have no legal basis upon which they can rent out such accommodation as it violates their lease, invalidates the insurance policy I have on the premises and most importantly,  they don’t own the premises. ABB more or less told me to get lost.

Long story short: unless significant changes have been made to STHL, a landlord’s right to stop STHL is subordinate to a tenant’s desire to become a host, meaning landlords who object to STHL must scoot to NCAT and find a sympathetic Member who will insists that a tenant’s obligations under the Residential Tenancy Act  cannot be unilaterally undone.

In my case I had such a Member who instructed the tenants to immediately cease STHL, which they did. But it should not have required a lot of legwork and investigation by me to get to that judgement.

[Author]

Replies