Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Don’t want this to sound like a mutual admiration society (
), but Kiwipaul’s advice is also valid.My first thoughts were that as MQ007’s Building is “small”, depending upon the numbers on the Executive Committee and the extent of those member’s support, it may be difficult for him/her to achieve a majority vote; absolutely worth a try though!
One last point (from me) – that 25% requirement in order to requisition a General Meeting is calculated on the basis of unit entitlements not Lot numbers.
You say that repainting of the Building was “agreed” and that Owners’ levy contributions were increased in order to raise the additional funds necessary to do that, and I’m assuming here that the original decision to repaint was properly resolved and minuted at a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation.
That being the case, Section 62 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) states at Cl. 1 that “an Owners Corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the Common Property and any personal property vested in the Owners Corporation”, and it’s worth noting that Cl. 3 only permits an Owners Corporation NOT to comply with that requirement if “ its decision will not affect the safety of any building, structure or Common Property in the strata scheme or detract from the appearance of any property in the strata scheme”.
Clearly your new Executive Committee’s decision not the repaint the Building (Common Property) breaches the statutory obligations of the Owners Corporation to properly maintain, and it’s further in breach as that decision may affect the structure and will undoubtedly detract from the appearance of that Building.
What can Owners do?
As a first step they can, individually or collectively, apply for mediation of the matter with the NSW Office of Fair Trading by completing this application form, noting the requirement for you to have evidence in support of your claim that the repainting works were agreed to be done and that your new Executive Committee is refusing to get that work done.
If mediation fails, then there are subsequent avenues for Owners to pursue resolution, commencing with this application for Adjudication and the issuing of Orders under S138 or S140 of the SCMA by the NSW Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.
This may all sound very intimidating, technical, and legalistic, but I can assure you that it’s none of those, and that on the basis of what you’ve outlined in your post, you and the other Owners are on very sound grounds to quickly and inexpensively get the outcome that you’re after; using the collected funds for the purpose intended.
Thanks Jimmy – but that was my post not Austman’s (thanks for the clarification by the way Austman) and somehow it’s duplicated (??); elves perhaps.
Anyway, I was trying to dispel the assumption that a Special Resolution always gives rise to a Special By-Law (SBL), because unless those are drafted and registered in-house (for the princely sum of $102), the services of a Legal Professional can make that an expensive assumption.
You’re right about the need for blanket SBL to cover works that change the Common Property. In fact as I think I’ve mentioned before, we’ve had to do that and go a step further by linking that SBL to a Register of Changes and Additions to Common Property that shows all works that the Owners Corporation has consented, including those it has itself undertaken.
If works aren’t shown on the Register, then the SBL states that they’re un-consented and that all maintenance and repairs of them is the responsibility of the Proprietor from time-to-time of the Lot concerned.
As an aside, I’m continually surprised by the fact that intending purchasers of Lots in our Plan very rarely commission a Strata Search in order to, amongst other things, identify any consented and un-consented works that have been undertaken on the Lot. To address the issue, I’ve begun including any consented works shown on our Register at Item 18 (“other items”) on the S109 Certificates that are routinely requested; can’t do much more!
To wrap all this up, in NSW if the taps are part of the water reticulation system that services only the Lot (and in a bathroom/kitchen that’s likely) and they’re currently and proposed to be within an internal as opposed to a perimeter (common) wall, then the Lot owner can have them relocated by a licensed plumber.
Unlike in Victoria and perhaps some other States/Territories, in NSW all pipework withing perimeter (common) walls and floors is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility irrespective of whether or not they’re servicing only the Lot. In my opinion that’s not such as bad idea, as I wouldn’t want individual owners themselves arranging works within walls/floors that are integral to the structural integrity of the whole building.
On the issue of the need for a Special By-Law (SBL) where works are proposed that change the common property, doesn’t a special resolution suffice in circumstances where the Owners Corporation is prepared to consider works of the same types individually as opposed to giving a blanket consent to those via a SBL?
There is a relationship between flow volume (kL) and pressure (kPa), but like a lot of things in the universe, that relationship “depends”(that’s a technical term
).Using your Plan’s water supply system as an example, a pressure equivalent to say 15m head (the usual standard) at the inlet to your water supply meter does relate to the flow that emerges from that meter’s outlet BUT the design of your internal water reticulation system builds-in “friction losses” that both increases the flow velocity and decreases the pressure.
If you look at your Plan’s 40 year-old internal water reticulation system as a giant garden hose, and its numerous elbows, bends, tees, taps, irregular pipe sizes, and posibly corrosion affected sections as a nozzle at the end of that hose, then a partial closure of that nozzle creates a friction loss resulting in a high pressure / high velocity flow, and when that nozzle is fully opened you’ll get a higher flow volume (L) but at less pressure.
I suspect that’s a simile of the problem at your Plan, as like most reticulation systems in older multi-unit developments (and some new ones), yours was not designed and has probably “grown” over the years through the incorporation of 40 years worth of ad-hoc additions, including all those friction loss-creating bits and pieces that together contribute significantly to the problem outlined in your posts, perhaps aided and abetted by a Sydney Water supply system that’s providing pressure right on the acceptable limits.
Whilst I don’t know the nature of the services that your Plan has to date procured, its challenge is to find a Hydraulic Engineer, as opposed to a plumbing consultant, who may well be able to recommend the implementation of some cost-effective design changes to your Plan’s internal water reticulation system. I’d very strongly recommend doing that in conjunction with Sydney Water, that by the way is a Corporatised Trading Enterprise and not subject to State Government interventions to its core business activities, apart from the (at least) annual raid on its coffers under the guise of a “shareholder dividend”.
Please understand that whilst I do appreciate your feed-back, I’m trying to point out that lobbying the Council to pressure Sydney Water will in my opinion be far less effective than your O/C engaging a professional to, together with Sydney Water, examine your Plan’s own internal water reticulation system holistically with that operated by Sydney Water.
Boronia – As the storage lockers are on title, the Owners Corporations “interest” would be restricted to the points where they attach to / adjoin the Common Property (floor) and perhaps what is stored within them.
Individual owners, including the one with the majority, could of course remove their own lockers at their discretion provided those points of attachment to the Common Property were not damaged in the process. Conversely, if you and other owners want to retain your individual storage lockers, then don’t permit them to be removed.
A couple of other posts have recommended that you canvas some Strata Management Companies with a view to then initiating actions through the CTTT for the statutory appointment of that Company to get the administration of your Plan under control – that’s good advice so don’t let the grass grow under your feet!
The noise must be bearable as in the 12 months since you initially raised this issue you’ve progressed from being a tenant to an owner; presumably of the same Unit (?).
Back to the issue though, have you considered a process of elimination by in the first instance liaising with the butcher to turn off the refrigeration systems for a short period so that you can then ascertain whether or not the noise stops?
I don’t wish to perpetuate this thread as justsaying has enough to consider, but I took the line that not heating a pool is like not cutting the grass; both are decisions by an Owners Corporation not to adequately maintain its Common Property. As always, just my opinion!
Here’s an update on our Plan’s energy saving initiatives.
Whilst I’m an advocate for alternate energy and energy saving from a philosophical perspective, I’m afraid that based upon the energy savings made by our Owners Corporation from the back-to-the-grid (gross) solar array that it installed almost 3 years ago under the then Federal and State Government rebate schemes, and the replacement of most common property security lighting with 13W LED fittings, that approach is not so attractive when all things are rationally considered.
The capital cost of the solar system after rebates, including some upgrades to our common meter room opportunistically demanded by our electricity wholesaler was $8,500, and the cost of the LED fittings totalled $1,550 (installed).
The monetary return from our feed-in to the grid (gross) at the now defunct rate of $0.60/kWh has averaged $1,500 over the past 3 years, and as best as I can estimate from recent and historical records the LEDs have saved us about $800.00 over that same period.
Simplistically, that’s a 5.5 year pay-back on the solar array, and possibly the achievement of a $1,500 “profit” before the expiry of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme in December 2016 reduces our return by 90% and renders to whole thing fiscally pear-shaped, and the LED’s could pay for themselves in about the same timeframe, by which time they’ll no doubt require replacement “bulbs”.
Our O/C has done the right thing from all perspectives and has achieved some benefits, but for any other Plans (in NSW) who have considered anything similar since 1 July 2012 when the first cut to the rebate commenced or are currently doing so, I’m afraid that from my perspective (as Secretary & Treasurer) the numbers just don’t add up from a monetary perspective.
OK – I appreciate that the costs of solar systems have come down by almost the exact amount of the Government Subsidies removed (funny thing that), and that electricity costs have risen (plateaued?), but the feed-in tariffs have also reduced dramatically; hence my conclusion.
Over to you Peter
Yes .. and totally legal provided those red/blue lights aren’t visible from outside the building.
With regard to the carpark lights, we found that permanent lighting throughout the carpark was less effective than retaining only those near the vehicle / pedestrian entry and exit points, and retrofitting motion activated floodlights elsewhere – strategically pointed at both ends of carpark rows; seems to have a “roo in the headlights” effect!
Back to the CCTV briefly … I’d ask the local Police precisely how the vision could assist them (particularly if as Jimmy T suggested the “hoodies” would be up”), what quality of vision they require, and whether they require continuous recording or if they’ll accept motion-detected recording. Our locals required a minimum 10 frames / second continuous at a resolution of 640 x 480, they recommended at least 28 days storage on the DVR, and still we’ve never been asked to supply them with anything – because as I said before there’s rarely been anything worthwhile to see. A great deterrent though.
I’m unaware of any mandated temperature for heated swimming pools, but as 27°-29° appears to be the optimum setting on the heater thermostats, I assume that’s the “ideal”.
With regard to your Owners Corporation’s decision not to heat the pool, that amounts to a decision not to maintain an item of its Common Property, and whilst such a resolution is permissible (in NSW) it requires a Special Resolution, where ≥75% of those Owners present in person or by proxy at the AGM need to vote in favour, and where that percentage is calculated from the unit entitlement those Owners’ Lots / the aggregate unit entitlement for the Plan.
So IF the resolution taken at your AGM was passed by a simple majority and with that level of support correctly calculated then it’s been properly taken, and obviously if the converse applies the resolution cannot be enforced and could be invalidated.
The funds that an Owners Corporation (O/C) resolves to collect by way of a Special Levy needs to be paid into its Administrative Fund, and as inequitable as it sounds in the circumstances you describe, the Act (NSW) requires that the amount of Proprietors’ contributions be calculated in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective Lots.
BUT… whilst I’m not aware of it being done I don’t know of any impediment, apart from obtaining agreement from a majority of Proprietors at a General Meeting, to a Special Levy being raised by contributions from a sub-set of those Proprietors in proportion to the unit entitlements of only their Lots. Others may wish to comment on that approach.
On the subject of CCTV, our Plan installed a 4 camera system to provide surveillance of the Common Property, and of the carpark in particular around six (6) years ago, and whilst that’s been effective in detecting people dumping rubbish in the garbage area and vehicles parking inappropriately, apart from its deterrent value to people contemplating “bad-things”, those have been about the only benefits.
If someone is acting inappropriately such as by breaking into residents’ vehicles or by leaving the fire door open as you describe, then what does your O/C expect to gain from the collection of CCTV vision to prove it? On the basis of first-hand experience I can confidently advise, not much!
Vehicle owners will become aware of break-ins when they see the consequences, and all the CCTV will do is provide details of the precise time of the offence and, if you’re lucky, how the person/s gained access to the area. Even if a camera is close enough and the vision clear enough to identify a perpetrator, that’s of no use unless someone recognises them, and the Police aren’t interested as regrettably, vehicle break-ins are all too common-place.
Seriously, your O/C would be better served by fitting some active security features like pneumatic closers on the fire doors and movement-activated flood-lights and strategically located flashing red and blue strobes (inside the carpark); you’d be surprised how off-putting the latter is!
If your O/C is unconvinced, then suggest dummy CCTV cameras as an interim step; good ones are just as effective as the real thing as a deterrent, and considerably cheaper.
Felix – I think you’re referring to your Plan’s Annual Fire Safety Statement, which (in NSW) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation must certify that “the building has been inspected by a properly qualified person and was found, when it was inspected, to be in a condition that did not disclose any grounds for a prosecution…”.
The fines involved aren’t really substantial, although at $550 for each non-compliance with your Plan’s prescribed safety measures they can add up, but the more important issues are those that you’ve raised about those non-compliances possibly compromising insurance and that some individuals concerned have made false statements.
If you’re sure of the facts, then place a carefully worded item on the Agenda of the next General Meeting of the Owners Corporation and seek to air the issues and resolve the matter at that forum.