Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
G’day Jimmy, I looked at this one last night and whilst I instantly jumped to an opinion, circumstances resulted in me having a bit more time to think it over.
So…whilst I don’t agree with the presumption that simply everything that’s in the Common Property is Common Property, particularly if the item is not available for or to the benefit of the common (everyone), until there’s a more definitive “who’s responsible” document available or some revised Legislation that’s less open to interpretation, I agree with you that the transformers and even the downlight housings themselves are the Owners Corporation’s (O/C) responsibility.
My only qualification would be that those items were installed in the Lot as part of the original construction of the Plan.
So far as the replacements are concerned, suggest that for an equivalent cost your O/C could replace the transformers with a 240VAC adaptor and matched halogen sealed-beam downlight, or if white light is preferable to a bright light then a sealed-beam LED is an even better and much cooler option.
FCF, to reiterate my earlier post, yes the Owner does have a say. After all, just because a current tenant wants a smart meter doesn’t mean that future tenants or any future resident / owner will.
As a matter of interest, when the works in our Plan’s Meter Room were undertaken in November 2010 where smart meters were installed in association with the solar installations, but with each set on a flat-rate buy-in tariff, the electricity distributor took the opportunity to require some concurrent upgrades to the fuses and isolators serving the Lots involved.
As the entirety of those works was on Common Property I had the electrical contractor invoice the Owners Corporation (O/C) for those, and I then invoiced the respective Proprietors for a reimbursement of the component costs; that is those for the works directly involving their Lots.
Anyway, I just checked the contractor’s invoice, and the cost to remove the old analogue meters, to supply and fit smart meters, to wire and re-wire each, to replace the fuses with circuit breakers and to fit new isolators (main switch) in accordance with the opportunistic requirements of the electrical distributor averaged $913.00 for each Lot, excluding the solar cabling and the gross (feed-in) meter.
That might give Blueman’s tenant something else to consider; as PeterC once said, it’s not easy being green! (and as Whale said: it can be costly too).
I don’t know the veracity of stories about smart meters exploding, but I’m sure electricity distributors don’t fit them so that consumers can save money, and for that reason I’d wonder why the tenant wants one.
In any case and based upon the works required in our Plan’s meter room when some Proprietors installed grid-connected solar systems, I believe that:
1) Meters are owned by the electricity distributor
2) They were originally supplied and installed by the electricity distributor for each Proprietor
3) The installations, including fuses, isolators, and wiring to the sub-boards in each Lot are within the Common Property for which the Owners Corporation (O/C) is responsible.So while the tenant pays the electricity account, they should approach the Proprietor/Landlord about replacing the meter, if in agreement the Proprietor should seek the O/C’s consent to modify the layout of its Meter Room, and if the O/C agrees then, armed with that consent, the tenant should engage a level 2 electrical contractor to obtain a smart meter from the electrical distributor and install that as a replacement for the existing meter.
What a mess!!
Whilst a can’t see any problems with what you propose, other than the minor one of the invoices (paid) for the works being in the name of the individual Proprietors instead of the Owners Corporation (O/C), I don’t think it’s a wise move.
I understand your collective frustration, but your O/C would be well advised to engage its own Lawyer; ideally one experienced in strata matters and building/development such as Makinson & d’Apice who are sponsors of this forum.
Isn’t the role of an Executive Committee the same as that of a Board of Directors?
I believe it is, so in that regard one cumbersome but nonetheless accurate definition by someone as anal as me could be….
An Executive Committee is a body whose members are nominated and elected by an Owners Corporation to jointly oversee its activities generally accordance with the provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) and specifically in accordance with the Constitution provided in Schedule 3 of that Act.
The Office of Fair Trading has a less cumbersome definition that you could perhaps pick the eyes out of here.
I’m surprised that a Strata Search and/or a Building Inspection prior to the purchase by the current Proprietor didn’t raise a red-flag, but in the current circumstances I don’t think that the Owners Corporation (O/C) can just “let it go”.
How is what’s been done in this instance markedly different from what was allegedly done by the Proprietor of that fire-ravaged Unit in Bankstown (NSW) who it was reported erected additional walls internally within the Lot in order to accommodate more beds/people?
Apart from the structural issues (which should not be ignored), I believe that there are numerous other implications arising from the two Lots being combined; building insurance and the unit entitlement being but two of those. Like why give an Insurer an excuse to refuse a Claim by the O/C, and who’s to say that the unit entitlement of the combined Lots is equal to the sum of that for the individual Lots?
There should have been a Strata Sub-Division (in NSW) in order to ensure consistency between what’s on the ground and what’s on the Strata Title, and irrespective of the fact that the O/C may now have bear the costs of that depending on how an amicable approach to the current Proprietor is received, the Executive Committee (E.C.) should in my opinion ensure that’s now done so as not to perpetuate the matter.
Mac…. if you’re in NSW I’d suggest a chat with Land & Property Information (the old Land Titles Office) about what’s involved with a Strata Sub-Division.
Payment for the fence depends upon whether it’s a dividing fence between your two (2) Units or a boundary fence between those two (2) Units.
Check your Strata Title Plan; dividing fences are usually shown as broken or dotted lines, and a boundary fence is shown as a heavy (thick) line.
Payment for dividing fences is shared between Owners, usually in the ratio 50:50, but if you want to agree between you to a different shared-cost arrangement such as the one you suggest, then that’s fine.
Boundary fences are Common Property, so payment for replacements is made from your Plan’s Sinking Fund.
Anything but firm action by the Owners Corporation (O/C) could easily result in the practice of residents annexing areas of the Common Property garden-space becoming endemic.
Whilst I don’t disagree with the community garden solution, it’s hardly firm action, and shouldn’t that solution be something initiated by the Executive Committee on behalf of all Proprietors and not an expedient solution to appease one Proprietor who has Breached the (standard) By-Law 4 to their personal benefit?
So my answer to the question would be to agree with those of my fellow contributors who recommend the issue of a Notice to Comply to the gardener, together with a requirement that they either reinstate the Common Property or pay the O/C’s costs to do so.
Whilst I don’t think that the Agent should refuse to supply the Owners Corporation with the Proprietor’s address, they’ll likely quote “privacy rules” as an excuse for that refusal.
Scotlandx is correct – assuming you’re in NSW, the Strata Roll only needs to show Proprietors’ “address for the service of notices”, and that can be their (rental) agent’s address. Similarly S118 Notifications provided to Owners Corporations whenever a Lot is sold/acquired need only provide an “address for the service of notices”.
So you could try a search of ownership on the NSW Land & Property Information website, but I’m not sure about how much detail is publicly available.
If that search yields insufficient details, then why not put a letter outlining your E/C’s concerns about the Rental Agent and their tenant selections a sealed envelope marked “private (proprietor’s name) only”, and then mail or deliver that to the Rental Agent and ask them to forward it on to the Proprietor?
With regard to the NTC, these should be served on the tenants with a copy to the Proprietor c/- the Rental Agent together with a note to the Agent explaining that the NSW Local Court has ruled that once a Proprietor (or their Agent) has been made aware of a Breach of By-Laws by their tenant, they legally adopt the problem and are as responsible for the Breach and the consequences arising from it as the tenant is, including in the NSW Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT).
If that doesn’t resolve the Breach/s, then have your Owners Corporation or its Strata Manager follow the procedures to seek Orders (to comply) from the Strata Division of the CTTT.
Whilst I’m not a Landlord, I do look after a self-managed Strata Plan (Secretary/Treasurer) where around 80% of residents have traditionally been tenants, and so have gleaned a better than average perspective on the “rights” of the parties to a Tenancy Agreement and how each uses them to work the system.
I wouldn’t argue that prior to the NSW Residential Tenancies Act (2010) the Legislative balance favoured the Landlords, but as usual the efforts of social justice and other lobbyists to have the Legislators address such imbalances have merely succeeded in the NSW Government swinging the pendulum radically in the other direction, to now favour tenants.
Consequently a few of our Proprietor/Landlords have moved to Head Leases with Social Housing Providers who can issue Sub-Leases with Provisions that address that imbalance, but most have taken their properties off the permanent rental market in favour of casual (tourist) rentals. That of course does nothing to address tenants’ real right; that being to access secure, long-term, and reasonably priced rental accommodation.
Any publication showing “Landlords’ Rights” would now be very thin indeed!
There are a couple of possible scenarios here.
First, it is usual for financial institutions to raise those fees, although most don’t apply them to payments made from savings/cheque accounts as opposed to from credit accounts. So far as I’m aware, the fees are either paid by the payer at the time of the transaction, or the payee or “merchant” can make those payments and absorb them, or make them and pass them on. So could it be that your Owners Corporation is making those fee payments and showing them as bank fees on the Accounts?
Secondly, if you have a Strata Manager (SM), they could have negotiated the B’Pay™ facility with their financial institution and it could be the SM’s fee for managing that facility that appears in your Owners Corporation’s accounts. I’m thinking that this could be the case, as “processing fees” for payments made by EFT are not usually made by financial institutions directly.
If you can clarify the source of the fees as opposed to what they’re for, I’m sure that contributors to this forum will provide further advice/comment.
Rather than share the detail of my comments re. Our Body Corp with the masses who may read (and be bored by) them on this forum, I’ve contacted Kate directly.
In summary though, and after playing with the program, I’ve concluded that Our Body Corp is a great tool for those of us who appreciate the benefits of self-management but haven’t yet got into it.
It needs a few refinements, some if which Kate is in the process of adding-in, but in general terms I only wish that it was around five (5) years ago when I took the leap-of-faith and had to cobble together my own system.
Open communication is great, but let’s assume that you received the Agenda for your Plan’s AGM, that you looked through all the Agenda Items, saw nothing innocuous, and so decided not to attend and to perhaps give your Proxy to the Chair of the Meeting.
OK? So the Meeting runs to plan and all those innocuous items are resolved, and then in “General Business” where nothing in particular is planned and therefore nothing specific is listed on the Agenda under this item (because it’s “general”), one of the Proprietors in attendance suggests some improvements to the Common Property – like say to the landscaping.
All those Proprietors in attendance think that’s a great idea, and among other improvements they, and the Chair with your Proxy, resolve to make those landscaping improvements including the removal of the shade tree that’s right over your Unit’s courtyard, and in order to pay for it all they go back to the proposed Budget and resolve to amend it and the proposed Levy Contributions to account for those additional costs.
Then you get the Minutes, don’t agree with what’s been resolved in General Business, and wish you’d have attended in order to put your point-of-view. But then you didn’t know that item was going to be discussed did you?
So that’s why General Meetings shouldn’t include an Agenda Item for General Business; although you’re right that “good communication and open channels” is quite acceptable – over a cuppa once the Meeting’s concluded!
I’ve just signed-up for your free trial, and whilst it’s far too early to comment, my initial impressions are that some of your templates don’t comply with NSW Legislation. As one example, the AGM Agenda template doesn’t include the mandatory items (in NSW) and does include items such as “general business” which cannot be an item. Additionally, your suggested flat-rate price of $84/a/unit seems a little high; perhaps a sliding scale would be more attractive.
The problem is that each State / Territory behaves autonomously with regard to Strata Management, but you’ve made a great effort with an initiative that I wish was available seven years ago when I took over the management (secretary/treasurer) of our Plan.
Anyhow, I’ll have a play with your program and get back to you with some positive feedback.