Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I suppose this might differ by jurisdiction, but my strata had a similar issue, levies owing were (from memory $20k+ and had never been paid since the building was completed).
We sent the case to lawyers, who followed a long and slow process towards having the unit sold and proceeds used for repayment of all costs/levies. The owner eventually managed to pay the levies (they lived overseas, nobody was living in the unit at all). I didn’t follow all the details, but I am aware part of the process involved sticking notices on the door/under the door of the unit, and searching for means to contact the owner in the country of residence.
I assume in the end all costs were also paid by the owner.
So the short story, it can be done (at least the lawyers said yes), but it can take a long time (more than a year at least).
By-laws can’t operate if they contradict or contravene a superior law (and all laws are superior).
Section 651b of the NSW Local Government Act says this:
Immobilisation of vehicles(1) A person must not immobilise a vehicle owned by any other person by means of wheel clamps, or by means of any other device prescribed by the regulations, except with the consent of that other person. Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
FYI, 20 penalty units is $2200 .I understand the need to obtain permission, but the passing of the bylaw is permission. It would then be the owners responsibility to ensure that the same permission is obtained from their guests, I don’t see why the OC would require individual proof of permission from each guest or tenant etc.I’m also really confused how this bylaw prevents any other from using any rental agency of their choice. It’s purely helping to ensure that the parking restrictions can be enforced easily. Why wouldn’t any strata not want this kind of bylaw? And how does it prevent property rental, short term or long etc…
I’m somewhat confused as to the problem with the proposed bylaw (other than the residuals requirement for the approval to be in writing).
Firstly I don’t think any parking can be illegal, it may not be permitted, or break some by law etc, but I don’t the police and courts would get involved.
Now I always thought that all bylaws automatically applied to all owners, Tennant’s and guests, and it was the owners responsibility to ensure Tennant’s and guests adhered to all bylaws. Regardless of a parking bylaw or noise or whatever.
So why shouldn’t your guests/tennants park appropriately or have their vehicle wheel clamped? It seems like a great solution to ongoing issues of non compliance of parking.
So can you (OP) explain what your issue is with this proposed bylaw? Is it that your property allocated parking is too far away and you want your guests to park on common property or to block half the driveway or something?
I’m confused….
Just a thought. Working on the basis that any payment that isn’t of direct benefit to the owners corp, albeit made in misguided good faith, what do you do? Ask the committee to ask for the money back or just ask those who voted in favour of the contribution to refund the money? Or just tell them to let it go and don’t do it again?
I would think that similar to any other illegal or improper payment, it should be reversed. Though I’m not sure how the recipient would handle refunding a donation.
Perhaps it would be easier to have those units who voted for the donation to re-imburse the OC, which would solve both problems (avoid the OC making a donation, and those people who wanted to donate money would be suitably out of pocket).
If the amount was small enough (and this amount would vary for each person involved), then it could be “ignored” and some commitment that it would not recur.
Out of interest, have you obtained any independant quotes on what it would cost to have the area cleaned once per month? How does this compare to the current costs?
From a contractors point of view, they would be charging for the travel time to/from your property, as well as transport costs (eg vehicle costs, etc), employee time, and equipment costs (even if that is a simple broom and dust pan). Sure, it is always cheaper to do it yourself, and every job always looks easier when someone else is doing it. My suggestion, get three quotes, and then present those at the next SC meeting or AGM. Even older people will be able to decide if they want to pay a higher/lower price for the same job to be done.
Finally, perhaps you should also ask about the original agreement to provide services. Maybe it was to have the cleaning done on the xth day of each month for a fixed monthly fee. When there is inclement weather on the nth day, then obviously services can’t be performed, but it is quite possible that the agreement still permits charges to apply. Again, this might be something that could be re-negotiated if you feel the OC would be better served with a more flexible service (ie, provided any day within a week after the xth day where the weather permits), potentially at a higher cost.
When looking at alternative suppliers, ensure you are quoting for the same thing.
PS, have you tried talking to the actual worker when they show up to do the cleaning? If you approach them in a friendly manner, introduce yourself as a new owner, and being curious as to what they do, how often, etc, you could get a lot more information than beating your head against the SC wall. Although, the SC may have already pre-warned the contractor about you if you have already been raising questions, so that may not go so far now.
Best of luck, I think this is probably going to be just the first of many battles ahead of you 😉
Personally, I think contributions should be allowed, as and when required, but the strata committee should poll owners first, even informally, to see if they were happy that their money was being spent this way. Surely keeping the community engaged and happy is one of the functions of the strata scheme.
Actually, surely the OC should not be “donating” funds to anyone, for any reason. If ALL the owners are in agreement with some fundrasing campaign, then they should all individually donate. If even *one* owner does not approve the donation, then it should (must) not happen.
BTW, who (if anyone) gets the tax deduction benefit of the OC making the donation? AFAIK, the OC doesn’t pay tax, so no benefit there, perhaps all OC members might get a statement on their levies notice advising them of their portion of the donation, and could claim that individually, though I doubt the ATO would be impressed with that.So, simple solution, the OC should never make a donation, it should only pay for goods or services that are required for the maintenance of the SP (building and related services).
Just my opinion.
If there was no strata involved, then I think it’s simple (and by extrapolation, it is still simple in your case).
The neighbour is not prevented from planting or growing whatever they like on their side of the fence, so you can’t force them to remove the tree, nor even to prune the tree (unless it could be “proven” to be dangerous due to disease/falling over and damaging/injuring).
However, the good news is that you are not prevented from pruning anything on (or above, or below, up to certain limits) your property. So, you could “draw” a vertical line at the fence, and prune along that line (both above and below if roots are an issue). If this was me, I’d be hopeful to kill the plant by doing this, without doing anything more than is permitted. I’m not sure that poisoning the plant would be allowed….
Since this is actually common property and not your personal property, then the OC owns it, and is responsible for the care/maintenance. Thus I would be requesting the OC to take the above steps as part of its normal “gardening” responsibility, ie, trim/prune the tree.
PS, I have no idea what the issue is with your sewer, if there are no tree roots impacting the sewer, then I don’t see how the tree has any relation to the blocked sewer, I assume you have a different independant issue with the sewer and are simply trying to attach those problems to this tree. Try to keep some perspective, focus on the issue at hand and it’s solution, difficult, but it will help you appear reasonable.
I believe it’s all about options…. how patient is the applicant, and how much are they willing to spend.
IMHO, there are two main options:
1) Quick/expensive
The applicant would have a suitable by-law written up, would probably include the SM and the SC to ensure all concerns are addressed.
The applicant applies to the SC to have an EGM, and pays any associated costs for the running of the meeting. At the meeting the renovation and by-law would be discussed and either approved or denied. If denied, then you may have received some feedback on what needs to change to get it approved, and repeat the process.
Time: About 2 months (notice periods for meetings, etc, not sure of exact times)2) Slow/Cheap
The applicant requests a motion is added to the next AGM (or EGM whichever happens to come first), at the meeting discuss and approve/reject the request for the renovation, and terms of the by-law.
Have the by-law written as per feedback at the meeting
The applicant request a motion is added to the next AGM/EGM, and has the by-law approved.
Time: up to 2 years….AFAIK, a motion as written can only be approved/denied at a AGM, you can’t modify the by-law during the meeting and then approve the modified by-law, and you can’t approve a by-law that hasn’t been written yet.
While I don’t know the specifics of your situation, everyone seems to think that the existence of security cameras is the end of the world and privacy forever. However, often security cameras are installed specifically to improve the security of the premises (either via deterrence, or via prosecution after the fact). Have you considered whether the owner might be willing to fund the purchase and installation of a OC owned security camera on common property to help with all owners of the building (or area of the building)? Doing it this way causes the OC to be responsible for future maintenance/repairs, but also adds benefit to other owners, in addition, it limits the loss of privacy given the added restrictions the OC can impose on access to the recordings.
I really want a lot more CCTV installed through the car park and other common areas, but costs are such that it really isn’t a priority. However, if someone else wanted to fund it, then I’d be very happy with that result.
Just my 0.02c….
If you really want to prevent this current issue, then I would go with the fire rating of the device, I know more than one lot in my OC that has been forced to replace the door due to installing these peepholes for this reason.
The proposed suggestions sound great, but before you jump, have you considered the costs involved in implementing those options (that cost would be borne equally by all units), and the actual usage costs being incurred? If usage costs are $80/month, and implementation costs are $20k, then is it really worth it? Cost to one unit of $10/month or $2500, in either case they are not using the laundry. For those users that do use the laundry, it’s a saving of $10/month, $2500 up-front cost, plus the actual usage charges, whatever that might end up being.
I guess every strata has areas that are never used by some units (pools and gyms are obvious ones, but the ground floor unit might never use the lift, etc), but those facility costs are still shared by all.
PS, I don’t know what realistic figures are, but just a suggestion to work out what you are actually arguing about.
Hmmm, you want to raise $40,000 to fight about…. I’m not certain, but it could be somewhere around $8800 (the increase from 1900 to the amount paid of 9700). Except, there would be 6 months worth of levies added in here, plus interest.
AFAIK, interest always applies, even if a payment plan is agreed, (unless the committee makes an exception, or by-law, or something).
I think if you want to be taken seriously, then see a solicitor, if they think you actually have a case that you might be able to win, then try again. Also, small claims court (amounts less than $10,000 as far as I know), where you can represent yourself, might be a better option than incurring massive legal fees.
Similar to the laundry issue (if my memory serves), if each lot owner installed their own fridge, then there would certainly be an issue (not enough space). Also, over time, I expect the “shared” fridge (assuming the owner of it is happy for other lots to use it to store their own things) will eventually get dirty and need cleaning, who is going to clean it? Finally, what happens in two years when the fridge stops working and needs repair/replacement, who will pay for that? Or pay for the disposal?
I think this is a fairly simple issue:
1) Whoever is using common property to store their fridge needs to get approval, and potentially pay for the exclusive use of the space. If they are happy to share the space with others, then potentially there is no cost.
2) Once the committee agrees to permit the fridge on CP, they might also agree to cover the electricity costs.
3) The committee might then agree to either take responsibility for the maintenance and management of the fridge, or might require the lot owner that “donated it” to cover the costs for maintenance/management.
4) As for the kettle, similar to above, get permission from committee. Also, would the complaining party also have an issue with one lot owner storing a cup in the cupboard, or a plate, or some other object? A kettle could be considered the same as those other objects.
5) Finally, some of the other items such as a microwave could be treated the same as the fridge, but a fryer or even a toaster might have significant issues in relation to fire/safety hazards, as well as a lot more cleaning implications. So, if you require approval for each appliance, then you can easily allow/disallow each item on it’s merit. Tacitly permitting items could lead to creeping boundaries, and real problems.
Just my 2c… hope it helps.
Other than the excellent advise and details from Jimmy-T above, I would think that if common property is only available to one (or a subset) lot owner, then rent should be payable. So over and above the costs for returning the state of the building back to what it was (tile to carpet) there should also be a rental payment for the parking spaces to cover the period of time that they had exclusive use. Try posting up a sign asking to rent a car space in the building, and see what prices you are quoted, then use that as the value that these owners should pay (to the owners corporation).
Hopefully you can get sufficient numbers of owners to vote with you.
PS, as an absentee owner, you might like to setup a private facebook group, whatsapp group, or similar so that all owners (and/or residents, we have two separate facebook groups), to discuss and organise things. Right now, that is to fix your committee and building issues, but it can come in handy even in a well functioning community, whether it’s to borrow a ladder, or let someone know they left their headlights on etc.
We are having worse than this issue in our visitor spaces. We have at least two vehicles parked in visitor spaces that were seriously damaged during an attempt to steal a car. (They broke into one car, and then drove in such a way as to hit a number of concrete support posts as well as 5 other vehicles, they never managed to get out of the garage). The police apprehended the perpetrator, but to date (4+ months) have been unable to contact the owners of the remaining two vehicles.
What do we need to do to have the cars removed, given that it is unlikely for the owner to ever do anything?
As an aside, it was discussed at a previous AGM, and I’d like to add to the next AGM to create a by-law for some rules around visitor parking. What do people suggest is a reasonable set of rules?
My thinking is don’t be too restrictive, we don’t want it to be impossible to police.
1) Allow cars to remain for up to 48 hours at a time without leaving.
2) Allow cars to remain for up to 10 days by application to the building manager.It would be too difficult to try and enforce (for example) a 12 hours parking limit. We are pretty open to allow cars to use visitor parking overnight, and even on a regular basis. The main thing we are trying to solve is the 2nd car that is rarely used being left in a space indefinitely, and the abandond vehicle that just never moves.
Also, would it be reasonable to require the lot number of unit number of a car in a visitor space to be recorded somewhere? Perhaps install chalk boards in front of each space? Or just leave a slip of paper on the dash of the car? This would at least give us a solution to know who to contact if they have parked beyond the permitted time, so we can make a friendly request to move (and ultimately, who to talk to when things progress)?
Thanks for any comments.
As scotlandx advised, if it has been admitted/or is known that the lot owner has caused the damage, simply get the locksmith to come out, install another new compliant lock, and send the bill to the lot owner. They will very soon stop doing things that cost them money.
To be nice, inform them that the locksmith will be called (give a weeks notice) and what will happen if that is still required at that time. In the meantime, have the wire mesh/perspex/etc installed, since it will be required anyway and better to do that prior to the lock replacement (so perhaps the owner will be happier with a single sided keyed lock).
IMHO, it’s always better to negotiate towards a solution, but have a stick ready when required.