[Whale]

Compliance with By-Laws is a condition of the Standard Form of Residential Tenancy Agreement, so you would do much better by approaching the Tenant's Property Manager AND the Proprietor of the Lot concerned.

The Tenant's Agreement may be terminated for a breach of any of its terms including the one about compliance with By-Laws. All that influences the timing of that termination is whether the Agreement is current (within its term) or continuing (week-by-week), but in any case the threat of having their Agreement terminated is far greater that any Orders that the CTTT may issue.

I say MAY ISSUE, as the CTTT's passion is for mediation, where the tenants will no doubt promise to abide by the By-Laws which of course they'll say they knew nothing about (even though ignorance of the Law is no defense and the Property Manager is supposed to include a copy of those with the Agreement), and then do nothing.

That's why the advice about photographs and statements is appropriate if you go down the Breach Notice / CTTT path – which on the basis of past experiences I most definately would not recommend .

Hope this helps.

[Whale]

Whilst the ceiling between the floors of the Lot is Common Property and subject to repair by the O/C, there are a few complications with regard to the repairs to the bathroom, given that you didn't say where the leak originated.

1. If the leak was a leak or overflow from a shower tray, bath, or sink then many Insurers won't pay the claim
2. If the leak was from the tiles on or the pipes within an internal wall, like where the shower rose and taps are on the wall between the bathroom and another room, then that's not a Common Property matter and not the O/C's responsibility.   
3. If the leak was from the ORIGINAL shower base (tiles / membrane / tray), then repairs to that and to one course of tiles up / on the surrounding walls is the O/C's responsibility. 
4. If the bathroom has been renovated without the O/C being informed, then repairs are the current Proprietor's responsibility. If the O/C was informed, then it's likely that its approval included a condition also making the Proprietor responsible for any and all future repairs on the basis that the Proprietor engaged the tradespeople and approved of the materials / PC Items used .

I hope all this assists rather than complicates the issues.

Cheers.

[Whale]

Thanks Wim,

We did employ a Strata Manager a few years ago, but found that they just couldn't devote the time to our Plan that we expected, and their Staff simply agreed to repairs to so-called Common Property items that simply weren't the O/C's responsibility – like repairs to leaking pipes inside internal walls and clearing sewer blockages in pipes that only serviced the Lot who's residents blocked them.

It's unfair to keep tradespeople waiting for their payment whilst the Strata Manager tries to negotiate with a Proprietor who dosen't want to pay for work that has already been done without any prior advice to them.

So in the end, a special resolution at an AGM saw the end of the O/C's Agreement with the Strata Manager, and a decision to let me take it on because I'm cheap (read free), and unlike our Strata Manager I have only one Plan to worry about!

Back to the S119 Notification, we're currently awaiting action by the NSW Office of Fair Trading's Compliance and Enforcement Division, and as they have advised that they won't necessarily advise the O/C of their activities or the outcome of those, we've written to the Minister responsible with a request that her Office intervenes, at least so we know what's being done with regard to the Licensee's non compliance.
Honestly, I don't know what purpose is served by the NSW OFT, but it's clear that Real Estate Licensees have no fear of them.

Your idea about letting the Proprietor concerned know about the issues is a good one, which I'll persue, although I fear that like many Proprietors he'll just expect his Property Manager to keep a paying bum in his bed, and nothing more.

I'll post the outcome of all this though.

Cheers.

[Whale]

BadgerBoi said:

JimmyT said:

The simplest answer is to Google “pop-up bollards” and look at the options for securing your space when it's not in use. 

 

---

Brilliant – don't know why I didn't think of that myself.

Just for the hell of it I might try one that I can raise while the offender is sitting in the space so he can't move his car until I'm ready to let him go .

thanks JimmyT

---

We had a similar problem and handled it in two ways.

Firstly, most owners installed a lift-up / fold-down lockable bollard.

Secondly, we created and registered a Special By Law that amongst other things stated that each Proprietor / Resident must use the numbered parking space that forms part of their Lot, AND that if they didn't AND they ignored a politely worded reminder from the Owners Corporation, then they would receive a parking fee not exceeding $500/day or part thereof.

Yes… $500; so we wouldn't have to amend the Special By-Law every time we wanted to increase the amount – the current Fee $25.

The Special By-Law makes the Proprietor of the Lot responsible in circumstances where a Resident (tenant) or their Visitor does not pay the Fee.

The whole thing has been tested once before the CTTT when one Resident refused to pay our Fee and the Proprietor ignored the Owners Corp's Invoices, and after some affirmative advice to our Proprietor from the CTTT's mediator, we won the day!

Over the 3 years that this Special By-Law has been in place, the Owners Corp has issued around 60 reminders, and there have been only 2 Fees issued; both paid.

So it works and it's legal so long as it's not a Parking FINE!

[Author]

Replies