Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Cosmo – It’s a bit of a fiddle, but I don’t see a problem with Executive Committee Members being elected at an AGM, and on the basis of simple majority vote by those so entitled it’s then resolved to make agreed payment/s to those Members at the end of each subsequent quarter, perhaps so that those align with the dates for making Levy Contribution Payments; that would meet the requirements of Sect 25.
Any discount on Levy Contribution Payments would in my opinion be harder to manage, as its limited to 10% under Sect 79, requires a vote by ≥75% of those so entitled on a unit entitlement basis (i.e. a poll vote), and would require each benefiting E/C Member to always make their payment in advance of the Due Date – where that can become messy; for example around the date that payments are made and when they’re received.
UPDATE!
I had dinner last night with a former work colleague who, knowing my interests in matters strata, brought along the Agenda for his up-coming AGM where two Items put forward by the Strata Manager covered matters to do with the NSW WH&S Act.
The Plan is entirely residential and comprises 46 townhouses that were first Registered in 2008, and despite that, the following Items were included:
“to appoint a consultant to undertake an asbestos survey including the establishment of an asbestos register and management plan ……“, and;
“that the Owners Corporation subscribe to a heath and safety program (my words to avoid identifying the Strata Management Organisation) to acquire knowledge on workplace safety processes and eliminate or control risks…”
The first Item included no details regarding the “consultant” or their costs, and the second apparently involves a small Fee of around $2/month/Lot paid to the Strata Manager, who would no doubt then gouge additional revenue from arranging the rectification of each and every issue identified and reported to them by Owners.
The point is neither Item is required, and the Owners Corporation of this and other Plans that are not captured by the provisions of the WH&S Act will rely on the (bad) advice provided by their Strata Managers and be convinced (or perhaps frightened) into arrangements that will undoubtedly incur additional expenditure.
My question is …. how will the good people in the property services / operations industry ever drag their professional reputations up from the bottom of the proverbial cocky’s cage when large Organisations such as the one that oversaw the production of this drivel continue to do so, and get away with it?
Exclusive use rights or not, the rooftop area remains Common Property and therefore the proposed balustrades would in my opinion be classified as a change or addition to that, where under Sect 65A of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) the Owners Corporation’s (O/C) consent may only be given by way of a special resolution at a General Meeting.
Before commenting further, could you please advise by what means your O/C granted approval to your neighbours proposal?
Whether or not the OH&S Report is a job creation mechanism, I can’t stress highly enough the need for those Owners Corporations (O/C) that are caught by the provisions of the (NSW) WH&S Act to engage an accredited person to not only undertake the necessary Audit, but to also prepare a Risk Assessment that based opon a number of factors, including the likelihood of an injury to a person and the possible consequences of that (e.g. the severity of the injury), will prioritise the actions ($) to be then taken by the O/C to maintain its Common Property so as to remove each identified risk.
At least then an O/C can properly program its subsequent expenditure by addressing those items of greatest “risk” first, avoid liability, and appease the WorkCover Authority as the Regulator of such things in NSW.
Re speed limit signage on Common Property GeminiBabe asked:
Can this be enforced?
A – in the absence of a Special By-Law, NO.
Can they (the E/C) do this without discussion?
A – as the new signage could be considered an addition to the Common Property, NO. But your Owners Corporation could specially resolve to erect the signage if ≥75% of those Owners in attendance at a General Meeting voted to do so.
How is this (speed) measured, how can this be realistically judged?
A – It can’t be
Do members of the EC have the right to confront drivers on this issue?
A – if Member/s feels the need to, particularly if a vehicle’s speed is considered dangerous to residents or their guests, signage or not, YES.
But as JGOWI commented, do you or other residents of your Plan have a problem with driving safely on Common Property; it’s not a big ask in my opinion.
Just to clarify….
I wasn’t suggesting that the E/C or other residents should conduct an audit to comply with the requirements of the WH&S Act (in fact they can’t), but rather that it would be a prudent option if anchorage‘s Plan was entirely residential and any audit was therefore discretionary, and the E/C et al. is “active”.
Again, I wasn’t suggesting that if such an audit was legally required under the WH&S Act, such as where anchorage‘s Plan was mixed-use or where the O/C directly employed someone such as an on-site Building Manager, that the SM’s advice should be ignored. Rather, I was suggesting that if an audit is legally required, that the O/C ensures that any contractor recommended by the SM was one that’s appropriate to the needs of the Plan (not just “preferred”) and that they don’t merely conduct an audit, but additionally identify and prioritise all risks and corrective actions in such a way that the O/C can stage its subsequent expenditure – over several years if necessary.
We don’t know if anchorage’s Plan is residential or mixed-use, but the point of demarcation between Plan’s being caught be the provisions of the WH&S Act and being exempt from those is straight forward as Scotty explained.
I don’t disagree with the Owners Corporations of exempted Plans conducting regular checks of their Common Property in order to detect and prioritise the rectification of any risks to the safety of residents and their guests, but that could be easily and effectively undertaken by members of the E/C or any long-term residents who would be aware of subtle risk-related changes to the environment; that’s what’s occurred at our Plan since 2008 well before the current WH&S Act came into play.
The matter of residents working from home in this context is one that I too have heard being expressed by a few strata managers (SM), and apart from the fact that any such activity would be in breach of by-laws and of the conditions of any lease, in my opinion it sounds like yet another furphy put forward by some – perhaps to exaggerate their “worth” to O/C’s as their clients who could well find themselves paying for a Report that’s not required, or engaging a SM’s “preferred contractor”.
I’ve only seen two (2) WH&S Reports, and from the reading of those only conclude that they’re about as useful as the greater numbers of Sinking Fund Reports that I’ve seen.
Aquarian – I think we may be at cross purposes here, in that there are two (2) scenarios where a change may be made to the schedule of unit entitlements in the situation that you describe, and where both require in the first instance a general resolution (i.e. passed by a simple majority) of Owners at a General Meeting to engage the services of a Registered Valuer to review those.
The first can occur at any time within two (2) years of a Plan being Registered, where under the provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes (Freehold) Development Act (1973) the passing of a Special Resolution is all that’s necessary for an application to then be made directly to NSW Land & Property Information to change a Plan’s Schedule of Unit Entitlements.
The second can occur at any time after the two (2) year period (above) where then (i.e. after the Valuer’s review) on the basis of either a general resolution (simply majority) passed at a General Meeting or a grievance by the minority of Owners to which your post refers if that resolution didn’t pass, an application can be made to the Strata Division of the NSW Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) under Sect 183 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) for Orders to reallocate Units of Entitlement under the process described by Jimmy.
Hopefully that answers your question about the nature of the Resolution required; special up to two (2) years from Registration and simple thereafter.
If only your Owners Corporation had passed a general resolution to engage the Valuer when it first met two (2) years ago, it would have complied with the first scenario that I outlined and could have avoided the CTTT altogether.
Finally with regard to Sect 183(4), it’s likely one of those quirks that the CTTT thrives upon, but I think it’s referring to the original valuation that was produced when the Plan was Registered, so the Member can compare that with the one now done to support the requested reallocation.
Martin – I agree with you, however most of the noise related issues posted here relate to residents’ bad behaviour and owners who have removed their as-built floor coverings and replaced those with poorly / cheaply insulated tile or timber/floating floors, mostly without the prior written consent of the Owners Corporation who would (hopefully) have determined appropriate noise reduction / transference standards.
There’s movement at the short-term rental station!
I today came across the account of a very recent meeting convened by our local (NSW Regional) Council, and so as not to disclose its identity I’ll simply provide the following extract from Council’s published record of the proceedings, with my editing in brackets:
“Council is working together with rental property managers in the (area) to ensure holiday property rentals are an enjoyable experience for visitors and permanent residents alike.
Council has held a workshop with local industry representatives about the Holiday Rental Code (HRC) which was recently adopted. This Code was prepared by the NSW Real Estate Institute in conjunction with the NSW Government.
“Council hopes to establish a positive working relationship with property managers ahead of the holiday season” said Council’s Director of Planning and Environmental Services, (name removed).
“We have had informal and open discussions with local real estate agents to gauge their thoughts on how we can ensure that (area) residents do not face the issues that have occurred elsewhere in NSW” added (name removed).
“We believe that we can establish responsible and effective management of holiday rentals by working together cooperatively with the industry, local property owners, holiday makers and local residents.”
The Code outlines a number of responsibilities that are shared by holiday property managers, owners of rental properties and holiday makers to ensure standards are maintained to preserve the amenity of the neighbourhoods.”
HERE is the Holiday Rental Code that’s referred to above which may indeed be well intentioned, but in my opinion the intention appears to be to have some self-regulation in place to head-off regulation of the State and Local Government variety (who contrary to Council’s report didn’t participate in the development of the HRC), and to steer investor/owners in the direction of those Real Estate Property Managers who are members of the participating Industry Group and are therefore signatories to the Code.
I would have expected that the procedures embodied in the HRC should already be standard procedures in a properly operated Property Management Business, and frankly I doubt that formalising those and sticking them on the back of the bathroom doors in holiday rental properties will make any difference to the behaviours of those short-term renters who are inclined to ratbaggery or to that of those investor / owners who want nothing more than bums in beds.
Andy – as the rumbling noise from the balcony doors wasn’t a problem with the previous tenants, it’s likely due to cracked rollers on the bottom of the door.
That’s an O/C problem, so suggest you have it try that fix first.
Some local Councils including those in S/W Sydney have implemented procedures to educate, warn, and where necessary fine people whose cultural or behavioural predisposition leads them to think that spitting is acceptable, and further, spitting can I believe be considered as common assault IF it’s directed at someone or at their property, done in an aggressive manner, or with the intention to intimidate and/or with no regard for the fact that a person on the receiving end would be likely to feel intimidated.
Regrettably none of that applies to your situation, and whilst the “peaceful enjoyment” provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) do (apply), those relate to occurrences within each Strata Plan and not acts within one that affects the residents of another.
It’s a difficult situation I agree, and the only practicable solution that I can think of would be to write to the Executive Committee Secretary of the adjoining Plan explaining both the situation and the physical location of the offender’s Unit and put that in the Owners Corporation’s letterbox, and perhaps try to find out the details of the Strata Manager for that adjoining Plan and copy your letter to them – they often have their details posted on front façade of the building or near its main entry door.
Your Owners Corporation is in this instance using its By-Laws to assist in maintaining the visual appearance and thereby the overall value of its Building, and if you’re an Owner you have a vested interest in assisting in the achievement of that objective.
Were you to install the folding screen, then you’d be in breach of another By-Law stating that “the owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the written consent of the owners corporation, maintain within the lot anything visible from outside the lot that, viewed from outside the lot, is not in keeping with the rest of the building“.
My advice….. place personal / small items on the clothes-horse inside your Unit in a position where those receive sunlight but from where they’re not visible from the outside (such as behind the balcony door), and convince your “missus” to use the clotheslines for the remainder.
Believe me, that will be much cheaper than the $550 fine that you’ll receive for a continued breach of the By-Laws!
puff – your conclusions about the applicable Form and Sections of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act to be referenced are correct, but given that the core issue is with the behaviour of the tenants I can’t help thinking that there may be a better approach.
Both the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) are wedded to a mediation process that’s primarily intended to resolve disputes involving breaches of By-Laws, and I don’t believe that either Organisation would take kindly to you by-passing that step unless you could demonstrate that you and/or your Owners Corporation’s (O/C) independent attempts at that had been entirely frustrated.
So as an alternative why not write to the that Proprietor one more time, and copy their Property Manager (Rental Agent), to explain the nature of the Breaches by their tenant, the E/C’s resolution to issue a Notice to Comply, that they (the Proprietor) are frustrating the implementation of that resolution, and advise that unless the O/C receives the overdue S119 Notification within say 7 days, then the matter will be referred to the OFT; let them sweat by not stating by what process that will be referred.
Then if you don’t receive the information, armed with proof that the O/C and/or its Strata Manager has (again) attempted to obtain the tenant’s details from the Unit’s Proprietor/Landlord, employ the OFT’s Mediation process to facilitate the providing of that information using THIS Form? That will also give you the opportunity to discuss the tenant’s behaviour and the breaches as directly related issues.
Given the nature of the information being sought (the S119), the Applicant for mediation should in my opinion be the O/C, even if as KWP suggested you then attend as an authorised E/C Member representing it.
Sorry to head you down another path, but I’m trying to help you to focus on the core problem and not a peripheral issue.
Struggs – sorry to see you go ol’ mate, although I’m sure that like most of us you’ve become attached to this forum, and that you’ll browse here from time to time in order to share your considerable knowledge and hands-on strata experience with the masses.
If Jimmy wants to send you my private details, I’d be pleased to keep in touch; good luck my friend!