Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I agree with you, but unlike Electricity Retailers, Water Utilities regard the property owner as their Customer, primarily because the old charging regime for water and sewerage charges was based on land value (like Council Rates) – not water used or sewage discharged.
As a tenant, you’re only liable for the water usage component of the Account, but I don’t see any way of avoiding disconnection of the supply other than as you suggest, to pay the entire Account and make an adjustment to your next rent payment. Just make sure you keep records, and advise your current Agent in writing / e-mail about what you’re proposing to do; that is before you do it!
In the first instance, I’d write or e-mail your Property Manager (Agent) to formally explain that you have responded to the previous written representations by your neighbour and to those matters raised with them (i.e. your Agent) by the Landlord and the Owners Corporation, and that you vehemently deny making any noise of a type that would cause a disturbance. I’d include the fact that you work from home together with any other information to support your position.
Ask your Property Manager to forward that formal explanation / response to both your Landlord and to the Strata Manager for the information of the Owners Corporation.
Beyond that, I wouldn’t be too worried as if the Owners Corporation (O/C) is of the opinion that you have breached By-Law 1 (which relates to noise) then they are first required to issue you with a “Notice to Comply”; not letters of phone calls.
If the O/C is of then of the opinion that you have again breached (i.e. not complied) then that initiates a formal dispute resolution process involving the Strata Division of the Consumer, Trader, & Tenancy Tribunal where you would have ample opportunity to explain the situation.
By the way, a complete list of all By-Laws applicable to the Strata Plan where your Unit is located must be provided to you by your Property Manager within 7 days of your tenancy commencing; ensure that you have that for future reference.
You can read some further information HERE
Thanks KP – as we currently have 5 Special By-Laws registered covering everything from the operation and use of the site’s security system (swipe-cards & CCTV) to the placement of solar arrays / hotwater tanks on the common property (roof), all written and submitted for registration to NSW Land & Property Information (formerly the Land Titles Office) by me, and I maintain the Additions/Changes Register, I guess that makes ours one of the 10% (that are well managed); even though I had to Google “IMHO”.
I agree with you though, all that would be difficult in anything other than a self-managed Plan (which ours is) where I have only that one Plan and its 27 Owners to worry about, whereas a Strata Manager (even a good one) with many Plans to look after would have little or no hope.
G’day kiwipaul – it’s often necessary to read between the lines of some posts, and with regard to chilliblue’s post I assumed that as the carports are shown on the Strata Plan and are presumably within the stratum, then there’s a better than average chance that they form part of the Lots concerned, and that as such their external areas including vertical supports and the roofs are Common Property.
So in that circumstance, S65A of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (the Act) applies, where the Owners Corporation (O/C) can authorise individual Proprietors to make additions / changes to that Common Property by way of a Special By-Law (SBL) with standard conditions, or by way of a Consent (under that SBL) with specific conditions.
The Act states that unless the O/C’s consent includes a condition that on-going maintenance of the addition/ alteration to the Common Property is the responsibility of the Proprietor, and that Proprietor agrees, then all maintenance and repairs becomes the responsibility of the O/C [S65A(3)].
In chilliblue’s case, I again assumed that as the additions/changes to the carports had been done “over time and without any documented approval” (read no authorisation, no consent, no conditions), that those additions /changes would now be deemed Common Property and be the responsibility of the O/C.
So back to your point about what’s stopping “every man and his dog making alterations and additions to their property without permission on the understanding that it becomes common property and O/C responsibility to maintain”?
Well, the answer at my Plan is a really diligent Executive Committee, (hopefully) honest Proprietors who own-up if they’re the ones who made the alterations/ changes, and a Special By-Law supported by a Register of Common Property Additions /Changes stating that any additions / changes that are not shown on the Register are unauthorised under S65A, and that maintenance and repairs of those are the responsibility of the present and subsequent Proprietor/s of the Lot/s concerned.
PS — I just hope that after all this chilliblue‘s in NSW and not in some other country (like Queensland Aye) where different rules may well apply
. Wouldn’t consistency be great!Austman’s right, but if the Owners Corporation installs the smoke detectors, perhaps so it knows that critical job’s done and done properly, then by default it becomes responsible for the on-going annual maintenance; and that’s probably not such as bad idea either.
It’s sound advice to contact the Office of Fair Trading (assuming you’re in NSW), but be warned, their response can differ depending upon the precise questions you ask and who you speak with.
In the meantime, here’s my response to the basic issues you raise – again assuming that your Strata Plan is in NSW:
1) Holding a General Meeting via a teleconference isn’t illegal, but it’s highly unusual as a the voting intentions of an absent Owner is customarily expressed via a Proxy (i.e. someone you know who is attending the Meeting), where you can give written instructions about how wish to vote on each Motion of the Agenda.
2) Your Owners Corporation should not allocate visitors carspaces to individual Owners as these would have been designated for “visitors” by the Local Council at the time that the Development of your Strata Plan was approved, and allocating them to individuals would breach that Approval.
If these carspaces are unallocated (i.e. not for visitors or for any Lot in particular), then they may allocated to individual Owners BUT this would require the prior agreement of at least 75% of Owners present personally or by proxy at a General Meeting followed by the Registration of an Exclusive Use By-Law and a payment to the Owners Corporation by those individual Owners of an amount ($) equivalent to the increased value of each of their properties as a consequence of the fact that they now have an allocated carspace.
3) There should either be a Special By-Law (as above) in place to permit all Owners (who want) to install air-conditioners and shutters etc to do so or a prior written consent issued to each Owner individually by the Owners Corporation including a condition that those Owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of those “additions” (particularly the aircon). Depending upon the delegations granted to the Strata Manager, they could issue that consent on behalf of the Owners Corporation
4) This is why your Owners Corporation should have Registered a Special By-Law with conditions or issued a written prior consent with conditions to each Owner who wanted to enclose their carports, because in the absence of conditions such as one about the Owners being responsible for on-going maintenance and repairs of the additions (i.e. the doors) then the Owners Corporation becomes responsible for that maintenance as the additions are by default deemed to be Common Property.
So now that you have my comments and after you have obtained comments from the Office of Fair Trading, what are you going to do?
Well, if you really want to have the matters discussed and properly resolved, you need to “requisition” a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation. You can either ask the Secretary of your Executive Committee to do that, or if they refuse, obtain written support to do that from at least 25% of all the Owners in your Plan (like a petition). In both instances, you will need to write down the details (perhaps using the 4 points above) and give that to the Secretary, who in the latter case must then convene a General Meeting to discuss and resolve them.
I’ve deliberately omitted some of the complexities, but hopefully the totality of the advice you receive will be a start.
Happy to stand corrected when I’m wrong, but just to be clear my assumptions are that…
- flatmate is talking about the responsibility for rectifying damage to an item of private property, where that property is not a lot owners’ fixture.
- “responsibility” is not limited to that of the Owners Corporation’s Insurers
- the damage caused to the private property was consequent to a failure for which the Owners Corporation has accepted responsibility (and there’s more to say on that too; but I won’t)
- the damage to the private property was not caused by the Owners Corporation’s repair of that failure.
If all assumptions are correct, then I stand by my original advice.
I know that it doesn’t seem fair and that a Common Law ruling may be different depending upon specific circumstances, but based upon interpretations of (NSW) Strata Law by organisations far more competent at that than me, that’s where I believe an Owners Corporation’s “buck” stops in terms of its perceived responsibility for simply everything.
The Lot Owner is responsible, and if covered could lodge a Claim against their Contents Insurance Policy.
Yes, but as I said before (perhaps too obliquely) just make sure that the location of the new fence is entirely on your Lot and not on Common Property, and make sure that you receive the written consent of the Owners Corporation (O/C). Whilst the current O/C may be blasé about the whole matter, what happens when there’s a new Committee that has a different view and/or if you want to sell at some future time and a Strata Search raises issues with the fence that put-off a prospective purchaser?
Unlikely? Maybe, but it too easy to get it all nailed-down now in my opinion.
Ruffy – your Plan’s By-Law doesn’t prohibit the keeping of all animals, but rather (as an “out”) provides instructions about how residents may seek the consent of the Owners Corporation (O/C) to keep some animals on Lots – so it’s actually a good example of what I meant about such By-Laws being instructive rather than strictly prohibitive.
In my experience, the (otherwise inconsistent) Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) is consistent in its “liking” for By-Laws that don’t simply prohibit certain things outright!
By the way, the additional “out” is that guide-dogs / hearing-dogs / and, I think you’ll find, dogs that are considered by a resident’s Medico to be necessary as a “companion animal” must be consented by the O/C under the provisions of S49(4) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996), with conditions.
I’d be inclined to lodge the necessary paperwork including a copy of the Statement of Claim to the Courts and see if that gets a reaction from the Developer/Builder. If you get a favourable reaction, then you can settle the matter outside of the Court System can’t you?
I’ll go quiet for now and give some others an opportunity to comment.
What a mess….I really feel for you and the position you’re in, and through no fault of your own.
As much as I hate to say so, I’d be inclined to instruct the Solicitor to prepare for Court and to inform the Developer / Builder of that decision, and of the fact that your going to add the costs of alternate accommodation (a serviced apartment?), storage costs, and anything else of relevance that you can think of to the amount of your Claim.
Hopefully the other Parties will come to their senses once they know that the proverbial wheel is turning faster, but in the event that they don’t, you should rely on your Solicitor’s advice that they “haven’t got a leg to stand on”.
Have you considered obtaining an expert opinion on the best method to remove the paint and an estimate to do the work professionally (not that you’ll be doing the latter), just in case the builder continues to claim that it can’t be done; actually I think it’s just too costly for them to do in the way that they’d prefer. Perhaps have a look at the advertisers on this Forum’s Home Page.
It would seem that anyone can legally challenge anything these days; after all that is their right.
So the answer to your question is YES.
In order to cover that possibility, your Executive Committee (E/C) merely needs to ensure that it has properly considered and properly documented its decision to limit the size of the proposed extension, and that it can justify that decision; as an example on the basis of compliance with a By-Law (preferably) such as one relating to maintaining the building’s façade.
Mine is not a legal opinion, so if you and/or other members of the E/C are concerned, a qualified legal opinion may put your mind/s at ease. One such specialist (strata) legal firm advertises on this Forum’s Home Page.
By the way, ensure that the conditions imposed include one about the responsibility for the on-going maintenance of the extension, because in the absence of such as condition that responsibility becomes one for the Owners Corporation.
I’m with Jimmy, but would go one step further!
When I first read the initial post I wondered why deliria would want to possibly compromise his/her legal position, let the developer off the hook, and possibly breach the Plan’s by-laws?
The builder has admitted liability by offering a “contribution” and the developer is in breach of contract, so I’d forget about removing the paint myself and instead move to legally enforce my contract with the developer.
I know that may mean delaying settlement, but a “step in time” saves many later on, including with building warranty in this case.
Paul, I assume that you’ve checked your Strata Plan and confirmed that the fence that you’re talking about is on the boundary of your lot and the one adjoining, and therefore that’s it’s a dividing fence and not a boundary fence. It sounds that way to me, but for your info. the former is a matter between you and your neighbour and the latter is an Owners Corporation (O/C) matter.
To answer your questions on the assumption that they relate to a dividing fence:
1) NO – but it’s the neighbourly thing to do.
2) On the basis of your intention as outlined at your Q3, NO, but again that would be the the neighbourly approach.
3) YES and totally appropriate provided 1 & 2 (above) are followed.
4) I can’t comment on peoples’ legal rights except where relevant Legislation applies ( e.g. The Dividing Fences Act in NSW), but as what your proposing on your side of the boundary could be an “addition to the Common Property” depending upon the classification of the land at the precise location, and/or something affecting “the appearance of the lot”, you would need the written prior consent of your O/C whether or not it wishes to become involved.