Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Mikey – having just read you other post on this subject, I’m sorry that I can’t give you any joy because the Strata Plan merely shows the location and boundaries of the area (m2) that forms part of your Lot, whereas the Plan’s Special By-Law prescribes how that area may be used, and that has precedence.
I’ll leave others to respond to your other post, but you need to consider that Orders can only be issued under Cl 144 if you’ve been denied reasonable use and enjoyment of your caspaces, and that’s subjective.
I wonder how many Landlords and Tenants in NSW are aware that S39 (b) of the Residential Tenancies Act (2010) states that water usage charges are only payable by tenants if the premises are separately metered and “contain water efficiency measures prescribed by the Regulations, and…
That the Regulation states at Cl 11(a) “that all showerheads on the premises must have a maximum flow rate of 9 litres per minute”, (b) that “all internal cold water taps and single mixer taps for kitchen sinks or bathroom hand basins on the premises must have a maximum flow rate of 9 litres per minute”, and (c) “that there must be no leaking taps on the premises at the commencement of the residential tenancy agreement or when the water efficiency measures are installed, whichever is the later”.
Perhaps if a few tenants refused to pay for water usage in non-compliant premises, then Landlords would comply with the Legislation and the community as a whole would be better off by saving water; a precious natural resource.
Our Plan’s not separately metered and as all 27 Lots are occupied, and mostly by tenants, our water consumption is steadily increasing and the costs of that to the Owners Corporation is growing at a much more rapid rate because our Water Supply Authority has fiddled with the thresholds (kL) where the unit rates (¢/kL) increase sharply.
So at our last AGM a Resolution was passed requesting all Proprietors to ensure that their Units complied with Legislation concerning water efficiency by a date 3 months hence, and that Landlords instructed their Property Managers to check for and as necessary fix any leaking taps and shower fittings, and faulty toilet cisterns – concurrently with their (not so) regular inspections.
I even offered to coordinate with our plumber and with tenants to ensure that water efficient fixtures and fittings were supplied and installed to all rental units, so that Landlords could then, armed with the plumber’s declaration, claim the Water Efficiency Rebate provided by the local Water Authority – that would by the way have covered almost 70% of the total (S&I) costs.
It’s now 5 months since our AGM, and guess how many Proprietors have complied with the O/C’s request and/or taken up my offer to coordinate with our plumber and with their tenants?
HINT: the answer does not include any number between 1 and 9.
Why? Because in my experience environmental awareness is not even skin deep, unless there’s a demonstrable pay-back within a short timeframe on the expenditure involved in being green, and in the case of our Plan the Proprietors don’t see that a benefit to the O/C is a benefit to them individually.
PanKot – there are a few possible solutions.
The simplest is to talk with your downstairs neighbour about the worst areas of noise transmission into their Unit, and for you to place some rugs or some similar coverings over those areas in your Unit. Maybe hire some in the first instance to assess their effectiveness together with your neighbour; there are some companies who hire floor-coverings for special events and the like, so check those.
The least simple and possibly the most expensive is to again insulate the gap between your neighbour’s ceiling and your floor boards. There are some newer techniques available such as strategically drilling into your neighbour’s ceiling and injecting low-expansion foam which takes-up the space and fills any voids between there and the undersides of your floor.
The last solution, and one that’s certainly the most aggressive (and expensive) is to install an insulated false-ceiling below the one that exists in your neghbour’s unit.
There are a number of companies in Greater Sydney and elsewhere that specialise in floor /ceiling insulation, but as I don’t know where you’re located it’s better for you to source those yourself.
The advantage of the last two (2) options is that your neighbour would be sharing the costs, and that would focus his/her mind upon how bad the noise transmission issue really is.
Apologies also for pursuing the point about “who’s responsible”, but the line I was taking is in accordance with the NSW Land and Property Information (L&PI) Memo. that, even though it’s only a guideline, suggests that Owners Corporations (O/C) are responsible for locating and fixing the source of any water leakage (only) when that’s affecting Lots in addition to the one from where the leakage emanates and/or the Common Property.
So even though the source of the leakage was within caj’s Lot, it makes sense to me that the O/C would be responsible for stopping it in the circumstances outlined above, and for the costs of doing that, simply because the impacts of the leakage are broader than just caj’s Lot as the source and include property for which the O/C is responsible (e.g common walls & the floor/slab between the Lots).
I agree with other posts that Caj and/or his/her Insurance is responsible for rectifying the damage that the leakage caused within his/her Lot and the one below.
To conclude, I know that both the L&PI Memo and the Guideline issued by Strata Community Australia only applies if O/Cs resolve at a General Meeting to adopt one or the other of them for their Plans, but in the absence of anything better I’ve found that whether adopted or not, a consistently applied approach that combines common sense with a reference to those documents works for me!
(Just thought of something related to the above….can anyone explain why the various guideline documents suggest that problems with the isolator for the electricity supply within a Lot is the Proprietor’s responsibility, and yet problems with the isolator for the water supply to a Lot is the O/C’s responsibility??)
Cosmo – Let’s assume that the leak was in a pipe supplying the one Lot, that the pipe was within a wall, and that the leakage was again affecting more than one Lot.
The O/C would be responsible in those circumstances to make the necessary repairs, and in order to do that it employed a plumber who was able to access the Lot (freely), cut a hold in the rendered wall, repaired the leak, and then patched the render. Payment of the plumber’s total fee would in those circumstances be the responsibility of the O/C, as would the painting of the wall (
) .In caj’s circumstances, substitute the lock for the wall and the remainder of the above scenario applies; doesn’t it?
I’m probably having a bad day, but I don’t follow your compliant / non-compliant / approved / non-approved lock discussion; it’s irrelevant isn’t it – as the O/C had to have it drilled-out in order for it to access and attend to the leak.
Over to you Jimmy.
ellamac – I doubt you’d find anything applicable (enough) for your needs, but you have a couple of other choices here if other posters can’t assist with anything existing.
Whilst Owners can install some items such as safety screens without the prior consent of your Owners Corporation (O/C), if only for quality control it would in my opinion be preferable for your O/C to either consent to each individual Owner’s requests to install (safety) screens and handrails and similar items on Common Property by a Special Resolution taken at a General Meeting; that’s passed when at least 75% of those Owners present at the Meeting either personally or by proxy are in agreement, OR;
Your O/C can make the Special Resolution (above), and then use the wording of that to itself create and Register a simply worded generic Special By-Law to apply to all such installations as you have suggested, which can be written by anyone who’s not prone to legalese or verbose language (like me) using this Form and by paying the prescribed Fee of $102.00.
Hope this helps.
(Struggler’s post came in whilst I was typing mine, but they’re pretty-much complementary as usual)
Lyn – Whilst I’m surprised that your Building was approved by Council without visitors’ carspaces, and that the carspaces forming part of your Lot were originally signposted as “disabled”, those carspaces are yours and provided your Plan has no Special By-Laws in place that restrict the types and/or numbers of vehicles that can be placed there (specifically or generally within the carpark), your carspaces can be used by you in the manner you have so accurately described.
caj – there are a lot of “probablies” in the responses that you’ve so far received, and that’s because the answers to a number of the questions raised by you depend upon what (if any) Special By-Laws are in place at your Plan that relate to whether it’s your Owners Corporation (O/C) or Lot Owners who are responsible for the repairs arising from faults of the type that occurred within your Lot.
Illogical is it may be, I agree with those other posters who believe that your neighbour had no obligation to do anything, and probably wouldn’t have if she wasn’t the Chair of your Executive Committee and knew that you were absent. Imagine the extent of the water damage and the cost of repairs if your neighbour had just contacted your Strata Manager’s after-hours service (if any) due to their likely closure during the Christmas period, and a plumber had also been called (out) to turn off a tap!
With regard to the fees and the water damage you need to first check for those Special By-Law/s, but let’s assume that none are in place, in which case my opinion is that as the water damage affected your neighbour’s Lot as well as yours, your O/C is responsible for:
- the costs both directly and indirectly in repairing the cause of the problem – that’s the locksmith’s costs (to access the problem) and the costs to repair it (a leaking pipe?);
- the cost to repair any Common Property areas affected by the problem.
Unfortunately, in my opinion you are responsible for the costs to repair all private property of both you and your downstairs neighbour, and as those may, as your Insurer has suggested, be covered by your Contents Insurance, you will need to confirm that and arrange for quotations in accordance with that Insurer’s advice.
As your O/C has an interest in who undertakes those repairs for which you are responsible as perhaps some may be required to the Common Property at cost of your O/C or may affect those areas, perhaps ask your Strata Manager to recommend some suitable contractors (properly licensed, insured, and who may be familiar with the Plan) to provide quotations on your behalf.
Finally, I’d be having that shut-off tap relocated to a location that’s more readily accessible.
tiamaria – in addition to the advice already provided, I should advise at the outset that (in NSW) all your Owners Corporation (O/C) needs to do in order to resolve its issues with those Owners who may in future wish to install air conditioning units is to Resolve (at a General Meeting) to create and register a Special By-Law in precisely the same way as the existing one covering the hotwater services (HWS) came about, including the Condition about the Owner/s being responsible for the on-going maintenance / repair / replacements of those.
As for the maintenance / repair / replacement of those air-conditioners that have already been installed, if those current Owners push the point that their air-conditioners are the O/C’s responsibility, then your O/C can Resolve (at a General Meeting) not to maintain those items provided that decision does not affect the safety of the building, the structure of the items, or create an eye-sore.
With regard to the HWS, individual Owners are required to cover their own costs of relocating their HWS to outside their Units and do the work in accordance with your Plan’s existing Special By-law, and even though it’s a good idea there’s no requirement (OH&S or otherwise) that I’m aware of that requires those internally located instantaneous (50L) systems to be so relocated. However, there is a Australian Standard (Plumbing Code) requiring those, and in fact all internally located HWS, to be installed on “Safe-Tray” so as to ensure that any leakage from the tank or the fittings is collected an drained through a common wall to outside the Unit or within the Unit to a nearby drain / floor waste.
You didn’t mention how an Owner’s desire to relocate a HWS to outside their Unit became linked to “advice” (from the O/C?) that they also install a vent to remove convey cooking fumes from that Unit; that association seems strange! There is a Building Code (in NSW) that for reasons of fire safety prohibits the fumes extracted by those types of vents from being ducted into the roof void, as an accumulation of cooking residues (fat & oil) can build-up in that area and become a fire accelerant.
I’m a bit your way concerning the potential for roof-mounted vent outlets to compromise the warranty of the new roof, after all tradespeople are very good at blaming each others’ work when there’s a problem (like a leak), so I’d suggest that the Owner concerned investigates a cook-top vent that is ducted outside through a common wall as opposed to through the roof, particularly as the longer vertical ducting of latter type typically becomes coated with residues and over time looses effectiveness; both options of course require your O/C’s prior consent.
Justsaying – So your query is actually about how the matter of a legal expense and any resultant reimbursement arising from an insurance claim for that is shown on your Plan’s Accounts.
As a Chartered Engineer who used to know something about chemical manipulations as opposed to those of the accounting variety, I can only tell you how I would show that on our Plan’s Accounts, and that’s by showing the amount spent as what it is, in your case “legal costs” under Expenses, and the amount of any reimbursement as “insurance claim” under Income. The difference in the amounts would be calculated by readers (but not shown) as the Excess on the insurance claim.
The costs for the Strata Manager (we don’t have one) to “administrate” in the example you gave would I imagine be shown under “disbursements” on the Plan’s Accounts and not be included in the “Contract” (i.e. the Strata Management Agency Agreement).
Just a brief follow-up with regard to your O/C’s proceedings at the Tribunal. I’ve been down that road on 4 occasions and have never come across any legal people, including the Adjudicator, and so far as I’m aware legal or indeed any other “representation” for the Parties is actively discouraged.
So I don’t know why your O/C was represented at that stage of the proceedings, but I do know that save any ex-gratia or other discretionary arrangements, our Plan’s Insurance only covers a legal defense, involves a much higher Excess (x 5), and is only claimable if the Insurer’s been advised in advance of an intent to engage the lawyers AND they’ve been provided with a copy of the Minutes of an E/C or O/C Meeting that approved the expense IF that’s estimated to exceed the lesser of $12.5k or $1k/Lot as prescribed in the Act (in NSW).
The Application Fee is $76 and representation is not normally permitted (or necessary) so in the absence of further detail I’m uncertain about what your O/C would be seeking a reimbursement of (?). If you can elaborate I’m sure that the forum posters will assist.
The appointment of the former Chairman was made correctly (in NSW), provided he held the proxy of an Owner that permitted him to attend the Meeting and to vote on all matters on the Agenda (including the one to receive nominations for and to elect the Executive Committee), and provided he was nominated for election to the Committee by another Owner present at the Meeting who was themselves not a nominee for election (so his daughter could not nominate him).
As for the identity of the Owners who granted the proxies, the Minutes of the Meeting must show all people in attendance both personally and by proxy from Owners, so your former Chairman should be listed there as ” (name) by proxy from the Owner of Lot – “.
Possibly yes, it depends upon to what standard an entry door is fire-rated under the Pt 9 requirements proposed by the Developer and approved by the Local Council prior to the commencement of the Building’s construction.
Modifications to entry doors such as the deadlocks you mention (some are OK), together with security chains, spy holes or the removal of door closers can indeed compromise an entry door’s fire rating, and that’s why I suggested that Cobra first checks the wording of the relevant By-Law that’s in place at his/her Plan.
The Standard By-Law 5 (in NSW) that I referred to in my last post states that an Owner may NOT fit any additional device to an entry door if “the device is likely to affect the operation of fire safety devices in the lot or to reduce the level of safety in the lots or common property“, and yes you’re right again – some Plan-specific By-Laws include a requirement that any modifications to a fire-rated door that compromise or breach the Building’s Pt 9 Standards (e.g. a “fail”) will need to be “un-modified” and returned to a compliant state at the expense of the “modifier”.
I reiterate to Cobra, read your Plan’s relevant By-Law first!
Cobra – yes you are correct, the front door and any locks /locksets that were installed at the time of your Units construction are Common Property, and the maintenance and replacement of those is the responsibility of your Owners Corporation (O/C).
Your ability (as an Owner) to change that lock / lockset or to install additional ones depends upon the applicable By-Law in place at your Plan.
Before doing anything you need to check the wording of that By-Law, but it’s likely to be (in NSW) the Standard By-Law #5 where the changes that you propose may be undertaken in specific circumstances without the prior consent of your O/C, including for the “protection of the owner’s lot against intruders or to improve safety within the owner’s lot“.
Regarding the numbers of locks that may be installed, you can only use your common sense, and remember that if you ever decide to sell or rent your Unit potential purchasers / tenants that see multiple locks will wonder about the security of the Plan and about the neighbours, and think twice.
As for the style, and type of locks / locksets that may be installed, you’ll need to match any new lockset with those in place elsewhere in your Plan (e.g. don’t use gold coloured fittings if those existing are brushed aluminium), if the entry door is “rated” you need to ensure that fire safety is not compromised, and given you’ll be responsible for the maintenance / repair of whatever it is that you have professionally installed remember – cheap locks aren’t good and good locks aren’t cheap.
CBF – Your Owners Corporation (O/C) is aware that the Owner of the Lot made alterations to the glass sliding door, and I assume you’ve now confirmed that the door is Common Property.
That being the case your O/C doesn’t need a to put a By-Law in place to cover this and similar situations in the future, as one already exists as By-Law 5 in Schedule 1 of the Strata Schemes Management Act (in NSW) where Cl 1 states that:
An owner or occupier of a lot must not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property without the approval in writing of the owners corporation.
Additionally and again assuming that the sliding door is Common Property, your O/C is required to cover the costs of repairs, but it could as I suggested before Resolve to arrange and pay for those (to ensure that they’re done properly) and to then require the Lot Owner to make a contribution to those costs, which could be added as a separate line item to their next Levy Contributions Notice.
Frankly I’d take that approach even if the Owner’s contribution is a small amount perhaps equivalent to the insurance excess (even though your O/C can’t claim for malicious damage), because what will your O/C do on the next occasion that an Owner makes some alteration to a item of Common Property and damages or defaces that; will the O/C pay for those repairs also? I don’t see the point in an O/C creating a precedent now that has the potential to in future become a rod for its own back!
Finally and once again, I wonder what is this Owner going to do to permit access for her dog after the door’s repaired, leave it partially open on a permanent basis perhaps?