Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Bubbles – in response to your questions:
1) YES you can certainly pressure the Building Manager, but as they only work for and take instructions from your Owners Corporation (i.e. you), it would be better in my opinion for you to also write directly to the Secretary of your Executive Committee (cc Strata Manager) pointing out everything that you’ve mentioned in your post, and requesting that the matter be formally discussed and resolved at a Committee Meeting.
2) Strictly speaking, in the situation that you describe responsibility for and therefore the cost of repairs would be shared 80:20 between the Owners Corporation (O/C) and yourself, and ideally with repairs being undertaken by the O/C and the costs being shared upon completion of the works. If the O/C doesn’t mention the shared responsibility, then given the inconvenience that you’ve suffered to date I’d be inclined to let that pass.
3) Again strictly speaking, the O/C is only responsible for rectifying the fault and anything that is consequently damaged during that process, and the repair or replacement of your carpet is your responsibility and covered under your contents insurance (if you have it).
By “strictly speaking” I mean under a strict interpretation of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act, however logic and goodwill (albeit measured given it’s been 3 years) may see a more amenable response from your perspective, which is why I haven’t trawled for any legal precedents – even though those may become relevant IF your Executive Committee doesn’t react in a timely way.
Adalazie – firstly, I’m sure you’re welcome, and secondly on the subject of you having a browse through “the books” in order to obtain the contact details of other Owners, that’s specifically permitted (in NSW) under Sect 108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) for a Fee of $31 for the first hour and $15 for each half-hour thereafter paid to your Owners Corporation, plus whatever amount your Strata Manager may reasonably charge you for administrative services such as photocopying and printing should you need them.
Further to mini‘s post (#3), if you do decide to browse through the books, then you also need to check the terms of the termination clause that will be included in the Strata Management Agency Agreement that your Owners Corporation currently has with its Strata Manager, because termination and more importantly the proper hand-over of documents can be difficult if the correct procedures aren’t followed.
You’re possibly right in your assumption that the Broker was just chasing a higher commission because $1M is the norm., although it will all be for naught as you’re again right in concluding that any illegal actions by Committee Members collectively or individually aren’t covered at all, and nor is any penalty that a Court may subsequently issue to any of them in circumstances where the legal defense that IS afforded under the Liability Policy is unsuccessful.
Furthermore, the term “illegal” is pretty broad, and includes things like Committee Members behaving dishonestly, maliciously, fraudulently, libelously, and by doing things as part of their role that improperly benefit them, collectively or individually.
So to conclude, if your Committee really does comprise “pretty dodgy people”, then NO amount of Office Bearers’ Liability Cover will be of benefit.
Not really the type of “flat” that we discuss here, but I guess it depends on how much money granny has, because plantation shutters are expensive.
And if rockstar’s Strata Manager was a statutory appointment (i.e by an Adjudicator) after the original one decamped, then much of the advice provided here is of little use because they’d have been given their brief!
How about it rockstar, how was your Strata Manager appointed; by your Owners Corporation or by an Adjudicator?
rockstar – if your current Strata Manager was appointed by a Tribunal, then under the usual terms of that appointment they’re able to autonomously exercise all functions of the Executive Committee and the Owners Corporation, including the setting of Levy Contributions.
So to borrow a KWP’ism, you’re stuffed!
So on the subject of both your Levies and how your Plan is managed in that context, perhaps some clarification of how the Strata Manager was appointed would result in some (even) more relevant replies.
Prufrock – sorry, but in as much that such a provision of the SCMA (post #2) would solve your problem, it sounds to me like a Special By-Law that’s been devised only for a specific Strata Plan.
As KWP said (post #3), there is a Model By-Law (17 in the SCMA) that’s main intent is manage what residents have within their Lots such as brightly coloured curtains or balcony umbrellas that can adversely affect the appearance of the building.
That By-Law actually refers to things that are “not in keeping with the rest of the building”, so whilst it may be a bit of a stretch, if the carspaces are part of each Lot (and that’s very likely), then residents storing the things such you describe within them may contravene that definition, because a carpark is for the keeping of cars.
Have a talk with your Executive Committee and Strata Manager about possibly issuing the users of the offending carspaces (i.e. owners and tenants) with a Notice to Comply (NTC) where it can state that it “believes” (i.e. not definitively) they’re in breach of that By-Law and requires them to rectify the breach.
See what happens, and maybe come back after that with the outcome, because the NTC is a mandatory first-step after which your Owners Corporation could pursue the matter further if needs be.
Bluehouse – no you’re not being terribly pedantic (that’s usually my role
), but I think that you may be placing too much emphasis on what’s shown on the Strata Title Plan in the context of seeking your Owners Corporation’s consent to planned renovations to your Lot.Common areas of a Lot are by definition those that are shared with other Owners and with the Owners Corporation as if those were separate entities, and using my shoe box analogy that’s the perimeter sides, the bottom, and the lid.
So anything that you may wish to do that could involve any of those areas needs to be discussed with, and in the case of Strata logically consented to by the Owners Corporation irrespective of what’s shown by the thickness or design of lines on a Plan.
Remember also that renovations to a Lot may not just involve areas in common with others, but may also involve internal load bearing walls, environmental impacts such as vibration and noise, and related impacts such as the movement of contractors and their equipment / vehicles around the property.
All the more reason why you and other Owners should simply provide details of whatever renovations may be proposed to your Executive Committee, and let them liaise with others including your Owners Corporation as a whole and facilitate the appropriate consent and any conditions.
In the context of renovations anyway, don’t get to hung-up on interpreting the Strata Title Plan.
Good point KWP – it’s one you often make as a good fall-back position in some situations!
bluehouse – I don’t envy you, but perhaps be comforted by the fact you’re not on your own with this problem or more generally with trying to extract a decision from an Executive Committee (E/C).
Mini may yet find some relevant legal precedents, and I agree that those may motivate your E/C, as may the fact that once advised of a problem such as this each may be held personally liable for any adverse repercussions to the O/C and/or the new Owner arising from their inaction, the O/C’s Insurance coverage for “office bearers legal liability” won’t protect them, and furthermore they can’t use the Strata Manager’s (SM) lack of advice or cautious approach as a defense, because the SM works for and takes instruction from them as the O/C’s representatives.
That’s it from me on this one; good luck!
bluehouse – whilst awaiting a possible response from mini , let me clarify that I thought your main issue was that your Owners Corporation (O/C) was aware of, or at least suspected, that an Owner had made fairly substantial renovations to their Lot, and that as the Lot was on the market and a deposit may have been taken, you were concerned that your O/C may be held responsible for the maintenance and repair of any common areas involved in those renovations by a new Owner.
If that’s correct, then we’re not talking about a Breach of the Model By-Law that prohibits activities such as driving a nail into a common wall, and even if that was applicable, how could your O/C defend the fact that it has never issued the Lot Owner with a Notice to Comply, which after all states only that a breach is believed to have been committed, so it could have afforded the current Owner an opportunity to respond, if only to refute that belief?
It was for those reasons that I suggested that your O/C approach the issue from the angle that the current Owner may have breached S65A of the Act by adding to and/or changing and/or erecting a new structure on common property areas within their Lot, and that a note to that effect on a document such as the S109 Certificate would be an appropriate means to make the parties (the vendor and the purchaser) aware of the suspected situation, and to let them resolve it together with their legal representatives and to the satisfaction of the O/C prior to settlement.
So rather than a new Owner not being obliged to restore the common property areas of their Lot to its former condition because works had been done to those areas by the “predecessor in title”, I would contend that the approach that I’ve suggested would in fact prevent a new Owner from denying prior knowledge of the works, and to either do the restoration with funds allowed from the Vendor at Settlement, or to beforehand seek the O/C’s retrospective authorisation to those past renovations, subject to conditions perhaps including one making that new Owner responsible for the maintenance and repair of those.
As with some other suggestions I make here, this is one that’s worked for our Strata Plan in all but one instance where the new Owner accepted the funds allowed from the previous Owner to make agreed changes, in that instance to take-up a floating floor, and then didn’t. Fortunately for our O/C, the then CTTT’s chocolate-wheel of possible decisions ruled in our favour albeit with the assistance of a relevant Special By-Law, which by the way is one of the reasons that, as opposed to being overwhelmed by it, I try so hard to avoid the NCAT and the real Court System; so be careful what you wish for!
Luke – it’s generally accepted that the numbers of permanent adult residents in a Strata Titled property should not exceed two (2) per bedroom, but that’s unenforceable unless it’s shown in a Registered Special By-Law of the Owners Corporation of the building or it’s a Condition of Council’s Development Consent for that building.
Of course, if you’re a tenant the maximum number of occupants permitted will be shown on your Tenancy Agreement.
As a personal observation, depending upon the size of the studio it seems a little cosy to me, but if the teenagers are well behaved (read quiet) and everyone, including the neighbours is happy, then what the hey!
Just to clarify a few points.
Dave B’s right, there’s no statutory requirement for Strata Managers (SM) to send out quarterly notices of contributions, but there IS for Owners Corporations (O/C), and that function is customarily (if not always) delegated to the SM in their Agency Agreement with the O/C. Why would you engage a SM otherwise?
The NSW Strata Schemes Management Act states at Sect 78 that the manner of an Owners Corporation levying contributions to its Administrative and Sinking Funds will be by it “serving on each Owner a written notice of the contribution payable”, and further that these notices will be by way of “regular periodic contributions”.
The Agenda of each Annual General Meeting (AGM) must include a Motion to determine how much money the Owners Corporation needs to collect (via levies) in order to properly manage and maintain its Strata Scheme, and at that same Meeting must also determine the amount of each Owners contributions in accordance with Sect 78, and at what regular periods notices of those contributions (invoices) will be issued.
So have a look at the Minutes of the last AGM and see what’s been recorded there re. the above, and re. any un-financial Owners being shown as in attendance and entitled to vote; because as Dave B has advised, they can’t.
Now that those dreaded legal bits are out of the road, you must have a look at the Agency Agreement that your O/C has (in fact must have) with its inept Strata Manager (SM), and look for the section where the functions that your O/C has delegated to the SM include the issuing notices of contributions; I’ve never come across a instance where that’s not the case! Also look for the SM’s “debt collection procedures” as those customarily include reminder letters (that sometimes attract a fee), recognising that your O/C can decide whether or not the charge that statutory interest rate (10%) on overdue contributions beyond 30 days.
When you sorted all that, you really need to sort-out your inept Strata Manager, firstly by sourcing a new and better one, and then by your O/C moving to terminate that Agency Agreement – after first checking the conditions attached to that such as providing three (3) months written notice of termination in advance of the expiry date shown.
Costa – if you’re referring to General Meetings of the Owners Corporation, then whilst any Owner can certainly request that the Minutes show who voted for and against what Motions or even place a Motion on the Agenda requesting that to occur, the only sure way is to request a poll vote where at least the votes for and against would need to be shown in the form of Lot numbers and their units of entitlement.
If you’re referring to Executive Committee Meetings, then whilst any Owner could place a Motion on the Agenda requesting that to occur, the best way for interested Owners to know who voted for and who against is for them to attend the Meetings.
whoops ……. I’ve just posted concurrently with Jimmy T, but at least we’re on the same page!
___________________________________________________________________
Your Strata Manager is probably being cautious, just in case the unapproved alterations to the Lot don’t involve the Common Property of the Plan, but she needs to understand that it’s the Owners Corporation who’s responsible for whatever actions may be taken to make prospective purchasers and those acting for them aware of the situation, and for the consequences of not doing that.
At some stage between the exchange of Contracts and Settlement (typically 6 weeks) the Solicitor / Conveyancer acting for the parties will apply to the Owners Corporation (O/C) for a Sect 109 Certificate, where details applicable to the townhouse such as the Owner as shown on the Strata Roll, Levies, etc need to be completed – usually by the Strata Manager on behalf of the O/C.
The last Item on the Certificate is “other items”, and that’s where I always include, in circumstances such as with your Plan, a statement that “the Owners Corporation has NO RECORD of a Consent ever being granted to any Owner of the Lot for the purposes of adding to, altering, or erecting any new structure on the Common Property areas within the Lot or elsewhere on the Plan under the provisions of Sect 65(A) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996), including but not limited to (add any areas of suspected non-compliance such as to the laundry and kitchen areas of the Lot).”
Any accompanying note, such as an e-mail, to the recipient of the Certificate should make reference to the information provided there under “other items”.
In that way the interests of your O/C, and those of any new Owners are suitably protected by virtue of the fact that a monetary adjustment can be made at Settlement to account for the costs of the new Owner either restoring the Common Property to its pre-renovation state or for seeking and obtaining the O/C’s retrospective (and perhaps conditional) Consent to those.
Kerri & AJP – It’s worth noting that you’re dealing with the Real Estate Industry here, and without elaborating, suffice to say that when advertisements for Strata Managers appear showing a Salary “plus Schedule Bs” there’s an undisguised inducement for the “additional service charges” within that Schedule, including for telephone calls and other communications, to be maximised; because they form part of a salary package.
Some Strata Management Agencies are now offering all-inclusive Agreements, where whilst Owners Corporations are still paying for those Schedule B charges, they’re effectively capped, thereby removing the inducement for Strata Managers and others within their Office to routinely accept phone calls and other communications from errant Owners and non levy-paying tenants, to pocket the resultant fees, and to simply pass those on to their Client; the Owners Corporation.