Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
alley cat – just like the electrical sub-board inside your Lot, the gas sub-meter that’s installed inside (the kitchen cupboard) of that Lot would have been installed there as a compliance condition at the time of your building’s construction, and as such it’s downstream of the prime meter and your responsibility.
So I think that your Strata Manager’s advice is correct, but for confirmation try contacting the gas supplier as opposed to the retailer who sends your accounts; so far as I’m aware that’s the successor to part of the former Australian Gas Light Company that now goes by the name of Jemena in NSW.
alleycat – I agree with much of what isy has posted, but in order to better respond, can you confirm that the leakage of gas is prior to/upstream of your meter, and whether it’s in fact a “check meter”; in other words a recording device (perhaps remotely accessed by the gas supplier’s meter reader) that’s located after a primary supply meter located elsewhere that records the total supply to the Building or to your section of it?
Apologies to those of you who may have read my past references to our Plan’s Special By-Law for the Keeping of Animals, but as it’s working a treat I thought it was worth elaborating upon here.
In 2013 I managed to convince our Owners Corporation (O/C) that it was pointless to persist with the Model By-Laws (in the 1996 Act & and in the 2010 Regulation) in circumstances where the first iteration of the NSW Government’s proposed changes to the Strata Schemes Management Act forecast that the keeping of pets on a Plan would be the default position.
I also convinced our O/C that saying “NO” to each and every Application for Consent by Residents would not withstand scrutiny, and would additionally encourage Residents to instead smuggle their pets inside, to let them out in the dead of night to wander around and defecate on the Common Property, and to discretely dispose of items such as cat-litter in the toilets and to possibly cause sewerage blockages.
So our Special By-Law (SBL) came about, where in the first instance all applications from tenants to keep a pet at a Lot have to be accompanied by a copy of a written consent by their Landlord/Owner, that has thus far been refused in all but one instance, followed by a lengthy but not burdensome list of supportive information to be supplied by all Residents.
In the case of “assistance animals” our SBL requires supporting documentation to be supplied by Residents to show that the pet is:
“i) accredited under a Law of a State or Territory of Australia that provides for the accreditation of animals trained to assist persons with a disability to alleviate the effect of the disability; or
ii) accredited by an animal training organisation prescribed by the Disability Discrimination Regulations 1996 or in any Legislation that may from time-to-time replace or amend it; or
iii) professionally trained to assist a person with a disability to alleviate the effect of the disability, and certified in writing by a Medical Practitioner as being essential to the provision of assistance to the Owner/Occupier making application under this By-Law, and by a Veterinarian as meeting the standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for an animal in a public place.”
Then if those hurdles are successfully jumped or if they’re not applicable because the animal is just a “pet” as opposed to an “assistance animal”, then irrespective, all Residents must provide specific details of their pet including a photograph, its microchip details an its Registration papers (for cats & dogs), and as some of our Lots are quite small (e.g. studios), where the “pet” is a dog, a letter from a Veterinarian stating that they’ve personally inspected the Lot concerned and that it’s large enough to humanely keep the pet that the subject of the application.
There are a raft of pet-specific Conditions (i.e. by type) attached to any Consents by the O/C, but suffice to say that in our experience only committed pet owners are prepared to jump over the hurdles contained in our SBL, and those who do so are the type of pet-owners who are committed to and will properly care for their pet, will abide by the Conditions of their Consent, and will therefore present no problems for the O/C or to other Residents of our Plan as a consequence.
There are currently seven (7) Residents with Consents to keep a pet at the Plan, and whilst only two (2) of those pets are dogs, our O/C has had no problems whatsoever with the menagerie that additionally comprises birds, cats, and a marine aquarium; and that’s why our SBL is indeed working a treat!
PTB – I’m always loath to get involved in insurance matters, but IF the Owners of the damaged Unit have insurance, then why wouldn’t they make a claim on that, include there the details of both the Tenant and the Owner of the Unit from which the leakage occurred (including the admissions by the former), and let their Insurance Company sort it out?
Unless there’s been consequential damage to Common Property, then as sympathetic at it may (collectively) feel, the Owners Corporation would be foolish to become involved, particularly as responsibility and logically the costs for making the necessary repairs would be shared with an Owner; but which one and how could that be apportioned?
Hey Jimmy – yeh you’re right; more or fewer 🙂
Seriously though, for some obscure reason I had it in my head that one adult per bedroom was the default position (?).
Although my summation that the default of no fewer than two adults per bedroom wouldn’t solve AJB’s problem still holds true.
AJB – Most Architects define a bedroom as having a minimum area of 8m2, and the NSW Building Codes require bedrooms to have a window, but the overriding “definition” in the context of Strata is what is shown on the Floor Plan; if it’s shown as one (1) bedroom then that’s what it is!
But remember, revisions to NSW Strata Law or not, Owners Corporations will still need to pass a Special Resolution to Register a Special By-Law that limits the numbers of adults that may occupy a Lot, which can’t be less than the equivalent of one (1) and could quite logically be two (2) per bedroom; which wouldn’t solve your problem would it?
Like many things proposed in the the revisions to NSW Strata Law, implementation by Owners Corporations will require a degree of forethought.
“ditto”
Austman said….. a special resolution in a large OC is very difficult to obtain (at least 75% must (1) actually vote…..
In NSW the vote on a Special Resolution is determined from the numbers of Owners voting on the Motion at a General Meeting, not from the total number of Owners in the Strata Plan.
So you could have 100 Owners in the Strata Plan of which 25 attend the Meeting personally and/or by proxy, it would be quorate, and depending upon their Lots’ units of entitlement, a vote in favour by as few as 19 Owners could be sufficient to pass a Special Resolution.
Dodger – that’s fine, but your O/C runs the risk of playing catch-up if those Owners complete the installation of their louvers before you commence “litigation”; which as indicated by the costs to participants it’s actually not by the way.
The process is largely informal particularly with Mediation where the cost of proceedings to the Applicant is around $80, and less so with Adjudication where the fee to seek Interim Orders is around $100; you rarely if ever see real litigation at those rates!
Here’s some more lite-reading re the workings of Mediation and the NCAT.
Good luck with a resolution!
Dodger – my first query is about the advice being provided by your Strata Manager; where are they in all this?
Their advice should have been that your Owners Corporation (O/C) needs to promptly ensure that the Minutes of the General Meeting accurately and fully reflect the facts that you’ve provided here.
At the same time, your Secretary or Strata Manager needs to advise these potentially offending Owners in writing that unless the O/C receives their written assurance that the louvers will not be installed without its proper consent, then after (say) 7 days it’s applying for Mediation of the matter by the NSW Department of Fair Trading (DFT), and concurrently for Interim Orders in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) so as to immediately put a stop to any works that they’re contemplating.
Note: an Application for Interim Orders will not be considered by the NCAT unless an Application for Mediation of the same matter is at least recorded in the system operated by the DFT, albeit that Mediation session may not yet have been convened.
Dodger — if you’re in NSW then I have a couple of additional items of advice:
- If the Owner’s proposal is not on the Agenda for the General Meeting then it may be discussed if he raises it, but NO DECISION may be taken concerning it.
- As Peter alluded to, there is indeed a provision of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) at Section 65A, that requires Owners with proposals that will, amongst other things, add to the Common Property to seek the prior written consent of the Owners Corporation at a General Meeting, where a special resolution is required in order for the matter to pass (i.e. a “pole vote” with ≥75% of those in favour).
Note: even though it’s the Owner’s balcony, its floor, ceiling/soffit, and any railings are Common Property, hence the requirement at #2 (above).
Iain, in an effort to clarify responses to your post/s I’ll contribute the following…..
Iain said ….. I think I understand more clearly that I don’t have to replace these (balcony railings) but as they aren’t a safety issue (they just look old and ugly) if I do choose to replace them as I’m now entitled to do given the 65A motion which has been passed, I should pay for the work required to alter those myself.
Correct
Iain said ….. the 65A resolution also attempts to compel other owners who are not enclosing (such as myself) to install matching spandrel on our balconies which is not required for fire compliance or BASIX but is merely required so that each balcony looks consistent. If I understand the summaries above, I cannot be compelled to do this work (at my own cost).
Correct
Iain said ….. and if the Owners Corporation decides that they want to do it in order to keep the look of the building consistent, then they can vote on that and the cost would be paid for by way of unit entitlements.
Correct, and without a Special By-Law being properly resolved and Registered on the Strata Plan’s Title, then the Owners Corporation (O/C) cannot prescribe those matters of style and construction that it desires, and furthermore, as its responsibilities to properly maintain its Common Property are unfettered under the Act, and as those additions and improvements that may be optionally undertaken by Owners under its past Sect 65A Resolution will naturally form part of that Common Property, it will additionally be responsible to maintain those.
So if the O/C doesn’t wish to be responsible for that on-going maintenance and repair of those balcony enclosures and new railings that individual Owners have at their option installed, then before anything else happens it needs to agree by special resolution at a General Meeting to Register that Special By-Law, so that with those Owners’ prior written consent, it can then legally transfer those responsibilities to them AND additionally mandate those matters of style, construction materials, and features (such as the spandrel) that Owners who by their choice act upon the Sect 65A Resolution must then comply entirely.
I think it’s time for you to do some lobbying in order to secure the 25% of like-minded Owners that’s necessary for you to collectively “requisition” the Secretary to convene an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting in order to put a ring-fence around this nonsense.
….and as the units concerned are on the third floor, it would indeed be unsafe for anyone other than the Owners Corporation to be responsible for having them cleaned; hence my original YES.
note: model by-law 12 of the Regulation 2010 clarifies the above.
Iain – I stated before that whoever it is that commissions the works pays for them, and that stands but with the rider originally mentioned by Jimmy to the effect that if the existing balcony railings are “safe” and some individual Owners for whatever other reason want those replaced, then as with some others who prefer to enclose their balconies, those Owners must obtain the consent of the Owners Corporation (O/C) under Sect 65A, and then pay for and maintain their works under the provisions of a Special by-Law.
Similarly, if a motion is put and is specially resolved (i.e. ≥75% majority) for the O/C to commission the works, then it (collectively) pays for them, depending upon available funds, from its Sinking Fund and/or by a Special Levy – both funded by all Owners in accordance with their Lots’ U.O.E.
I think those provisions are pretty clear, but I’m a little confused by your statement (post #4) about a “different outcome” being already specially resolved at a General Meeting; in which case that decision did in fact “force” that outcome and in so doing brought the current debate to an end – unless of course its been since overturned by a opposing special resolution or by a decision of the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).
Lastly, neither your O/C nor its individual Owners can contract out of the Law that in this instance comprises all provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) SCMA, so any Deed of Agreement that purports to do that would have no standing.
Apologies for the glib answer but…..
YES!