Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
All that nonsense perhaps makes this previous post more attractive:
daphne diaphanous said: I would personally buy a strongly built room divider & insert the two ends firmly into two very large & heavy pots. Chosen carefully, it would look good, serve Tony’s purpose & because it is not a fixture, does not require permission from anyone. So there.
It sounds like all the items you mention are common property, and unless your Plan has a Special By-Law in place stating that it’s inappropriate for its Owners Corporation (O/C) to maintain, renew, replace or repair any of those items (and that’s unlikely), then that responsibility is with your O/C.
So if the person you contacted is your Strata Manager and your Plan is in NSW, then you need to remind them of the O/C’s unfettered responsibility under Sect 62 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) to “properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property….”, to insist that all necessary repairs commence within a realistically short timeframe, and to advise that if they don’t (commence) then you will be seeking Orders to require that from the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal.
IF it comes to that, you’re seeking Orders under Sect 140 of the SCMA using THIS form.
A few points of clarification please:
- Is the wall with the cracked render an internal dividing wall within your Unit?
- Is the window damage internal or external?
- When you say that you’ve contacted the Managing Agent, do you mean the person who manages the rental of your Unit or your Strata Manager?
Jeff.f – Our plan is entirely self-managed so I don’t have any experience in dealing with Building Managers’ activities, but I do know that there’s a great deal of liaison necessary between them and Strata Managers in order for the “system” to work. But didn’t Jimmy T address your question in his post #10 where he said that you could give your Strata Manager delegated powers to approve work proposed by the Building Manager?
If your Executive Committee wants to avoid too much day-to-day involvement but still wants some degree of control (I would), then it may consider Period Orders. That is, issued to the Building Manager and covering generic activities such as “cleaning”, “garden maintenance”, and “common lighting repairs” for a defined period of say 6 months to begin with, and with an upper-limiting fee based upon your Plan’s approved budgets for those items and the Building Manager’s anticipated fees (sub-contracted or otherwise).
The Strata Manager could be similarly instructed to approve all resultant invoices from the Building Manager during the currency of the Period Orders and within their terms; both scope and financial.
If everything works well, then the term of all or some of the Period Orders could be extended.
I seem to remember you stating in another post that the complainants’ submission in your matter had contained some “porkies”, and if that’s the case your best (if not only) response would be to provide statements, ideally evidentiary, to rebut those – not to proliferate them.
Remember though you’re not dealing with a Court, and that change of acronym or otherwise, you’re still dealing with the CTTT, where the Legislative Council’s inquiry found their procedures “complex and bewildering” and where the strangest decisions too often emerged!
Well said Scotty….. and we were led down this conspiratorial path when Daphne hypothesised “there is clearly an attempt to defraud Gaven83”.
Lessons learnt in Strata: don’t go for the boots and all approach first-up – particularly when the other party hasn’t (yet), and when the issue is at hand is purely “they said he did, and he said he didn’t”.
As I originally suggested to Gaven, just deny any liability in the strongest possible and yet reasonable terms, and let the O/C prove otherwise (or as Scotty so eloquently put it – “tell them to go jump”).
Strictly speaking the bins are for the use of residents, but isn’t the absent Owner/Landlord doing you all a favour by keeping the Common Property in a state of good repair?
If the Owners Corporation (O/C) did as you suggest and engaged the services of a gardener, then sure they’d take the green waste away, the O/C and indirectly all Owners / Landlords would pay for that service, and you’d all see that increase in their Strata Levies reflected in your rent/s.
As an Owner, your unofficial “gardener” doesn’t need residents’ permission to be on Common Areas, but why not place a polite and personalised note on the bins and on the security door thanking her for the work that she does, and asking her to perhaps spread the green waste amongst all the bins so that residents can more easily compact it and to remind her of the need to keep the security door closed?
gaven – as you’re new to Strata, I must advise you up-front that you’re not technically incorrect by using the visitors’ carspace, but rather that you’re in breach of one of the Plan’s By-Laws and are therefore legally incorrect, and liable to a penalty which you, by application from the Owners Corporation, could be issued with by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
I should also advise that Owners Corporations have a legal responsibility to comply with the Conditions of their building’s Development Consent by keeping all designated visitors’ carspaces available for that purpose, and to properly maintain their Common Property; but more of that later.
It seems to me that the Owners Corporation (O/C) of your building and/or its Strata Manager takes a reasonable approach to addressing the improper use of its visitors’ carspaces, as it could have issued you with a formal Notice to Comply instead of a letter.
That said, the O/C is being a bit naughty by not attending to known problems with the operation of the automatic gate and to the apparently known unsuitability of one of its designated visitors’ carspaces.
You shouldn’t ignore the letter from the Strata Manager, and should immediately reply to them in an equally reasoned manner and copy your Property Manager (Rental Agent) including the relevant points, most of which are stated in your post including:
1) That you were unable to access your garage as it was being blocked by another resident cleaning their car;
2) That in order to unload your vehicle you had no option but to park in the visitors’ space, and that you intended to quickly return;
3) That you now understand that you were in breach of the Plan’s By-Laws, and that you haven’t in the past and won’t again offend in that way;
4) That you deny absolutely that the positioning of your vehicle could have, or did cause any damage to the automatic gate, and;
5) That you understand the O/C is clearly aware of past problems with the correct operation of its automatic gate and with the unsuitability of the visitors’ parking space, and;
6) That the O/C should (reasonably) be reminded of their responsibilities under the provisions of Sect 62 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) to ensure that all their visitors’ parking spaces are fit for use, and to properly repair and maintain their gate to ensure that it operates correctly.
A reciprocal style of reasonable response should get the O/C off your back, but if it fails then you’ll find Tenants NSW very helpful with such matters.
You will find the details HERE, but it would be a whole lot easier if your Executive Committee shared the information that they currently receive!
To make the process easier, your letter requesting an inspection of the O/C’s records should state precisely what it is you want to see. The prescribed fee to personally inspect is currently $30 for the first hour plus $15 / 30 mins thereafter, but the Strata Manager can additionally charge you whatever they (reasonably) want to for printing / photocopying / e-mailing etc.
Good advice – and in case you need to formally inspect the records HERE is the relevant part of the NSW SCMA; the fee is $30 for the first hour + $15 per 30 minutes thereafter.
Felix – I assume that you’re referring to your Plan’s Annual Fire Safety Statement, where a properly qualified contractor can undertake the requisite site inspection and provides their Report to the Owners Corporation or their Agent – in your case the Strata Manager; right?.
You claim that the Strata Manager then uses that Report to complete the Owners Corporation’s Annual Fire Safety Statement, and falsely indicates that everything shown on the Building’s Fire Safety Schedule (issued with the original Occupation Certificate for the building) is complaint, and with no faults; right?
If all that’s correct, then the Strata Manager is making a false declaration, and fines and insurance implications aside, your Owners Corporation is legally the “principal manager” and the organisation ultimately responsible, and therefore needs to regain control of its destiny!
I wouldn’t suggest running-off to the Council just yet as that may end badly, but I will suggest that the “concerned” Members (min 30% req’d – ref Cl 7) of the Executive Committee (E/C) requisition the convening of a Meeting ASAP, where a Motion should be put to engage the services of a different contractor to undertake the site inspection, that their resultant Report be provided directly to the E/C, that the Strata Manager be then instructed to accordingly complete the Annual Fire Safety Statement, to initiate any required works, and to return the Statement to the E/C Secretary for signature on behalf of the O/C and submission to Council.
Once everything’s under control, the Strata Manager’s conduct could be reported to the NSW Office Of Fair Trading who’s responsible for the NSW Property, Stock, and Business Agents Act which regulates their business operations and professional conduct.
I hadn’t noticed until I read your post, and can only deduce that as the Strata Schemes Management Amendment (Child Window Safety Devices) Act 1996 No 138 was Repealed on 11/12/2013, and that a equivalent provision for “Window Safety Devices – Child Safety” has been included at Sect 119 of the Strata Schemes Management Bill (2014) that’s now before Cabinet, that as is customary relevant details including about a likely phase-in for the above will be included in the Regulations made if/when the Bill becomes Law in NSW.
Watch this space!
Stumped – Yes, you’re right about no minimum term being applicable to Agreements under the NSW Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), and that’s why it doesn’t apply to some types of occupancies including short-term / holiday rentals.
We’re hoping though that by requiring that all occupancies be under the provisions of the RTA that short-term / holiday rentals will be automatically precluded, that the use of the term “lease” in Sect 49(1) means one issued under the RTA, and that if the matter ever gets to the NCAT we’re not seen to be “prohibiting or restricting” Owners’ ability to lease their Lots.
As I said, it all hinges upon the monetary return that Owners involved achieve from the permanent occupancy of their Lots as opposed to from short-term / holiday rentals, and from the figures floated at the Meeting the difference is marginal (slightly favouring the former), and that just might keep me out of the NCAT.
PS – I omitted to mention that prior to the EGM I e-mailed our Insurers to ascertain what if any impacts to our Policy would arise from the short-term / holiday rental of 8/27 Lots. Their written response was that whilst we needed to advise them of that style of usage and occupation (and we then hadn’t), there would be no impacts if and until a ratio of short-term / holiday lots to the total lots in the Plan was exceeded. Interestingly our Insurers declined to reveal what that ratio was, and I gained the impression that it was somewhat arbitrary.Whale 1330hrs 31/01
An update on my post #22.
Our EGM to consider Motions to only permit the rental occupation of Lots in the Plan under the provisions of the NSW Residential Tenancies Act (2010), and to additionally limit the numbers of adult occupants in any Lot to the numbers of bedrooms X 2 was held last night.
The Motions were discussed at length and at time quite emotionally, but with 22% of those in attendance then voting against the proposal, it was specially resolved (passed); just!
Even though I’ll now draft and Register the Special By-Law (SBL) in the terms resolved, I have my doubts about its ability to withstand a challenge at the NCAT by affected Owner/s, as even though the previous short term / holiday rental of Lots was on the basis of a “permission to occupy” as opposed to a Residential Tenancy Agreement, in my opinion our SBL will still restrict Owners’ ability to lease their Lots and thereby be in breach S49(1) of the SCMA.
On the basis of the discussions at the Meeting, any challenge will I suspect depend upon the income affected Owners will now derive from a permanent rental as opposed to from a short term / holiday occupancy.
Nonetheless I’d be most interested to receive some advice about the legality of what we’re doing.
Gees I hate these….. but seriously though, depending upon any notations to the contrary on the Strata Title Plan for your Scheme, and/or any Special By-Laws (SBL) about air-conditioning installations, my understanding of the 1974 change is, amongst other things, that any walls separating parts of the same lot are not common property.
So in this circumstance if the balcony is part of the lot (check?) then the wall separating it from the lot’s living area is not common property, BUT you’ll note from Jimmy T’s extract from Sect 116 of the Act (post #12) that the Owner was still required to provide the O/C with a minimum 14 days notice of what works were then intended; that’s advice not a request for consent.
Nonetheless it was at that stage the O/C could have imposed conditions on the installation, but I’m afraid that’s all water under the bridge (or cool air through the vents) now, unless the Owner would at this stage agree in writing to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the installation, including the wall, in which case the O/C could specially resolve to create and Register a SBL covering that and other aspects of the completed installation any others that may in future occur by other Owners.
As the Owner concerned is also an E/C Member they may be morally inclined to accept such a proposition; worth a try perhaps!