Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I assume that your post relates to the Topic (i.e the tree).
That being the case, if the tree is above the stratum of the Lot (as shown on the Strata Plan) then its removal is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation; exclusive use or not.
Conversely, if it’s entirely lower than the stratum of the Lot, then it’s the responsibility of the Lot Owner.
There’s no need for an adjudicator unless there’s some disagreement about that responsibility.
Yes Paul, that’s exactly what I’m saying, but please don’t be deterred from getting the record straight, as the process with L&PI is not as difficult or expensive as your O/C might think.
It’s quite possible that the “new walls” you refer to would be Common Property IF they form the boundary of your Owner’s renovation to his Lot, thus making the Owners Corporation (O/C) responsible for all maintenance and repairs. Similarly, your O/C’s Insurance may not provide cover for any parts of the Building that are not shown on the Strata Plan.
You’re on the right track by suggesting that the Lot Owner engages and pays for the services of a Surveyor to re-draw the Strata Plan, but that should be followed by the Owner engaging a Valuer to determine the current value of the original Lot, and the value of the extended Lot.
Information from the Surveyor and the Valuer can be used by your O/C to undertake a Strata Sub-Division, the Form for which can be lodged together with a revised Schedule of Unit Entitlements, where only the renovated Lot is revised.
This is a much simpler and significantly cheaper version of the process that a Developer might undertake to strata a new building, and it’s all possible in NSW under the Provisions of the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973, which is administered by the NSW Land & Property Information (LPI) – the old Lands Dept.
Have a browse on http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au and then contact them by phone. They’re very helpful, and may suggest an even easier way to achieve what I’m recommending; your O/C must do it though!
Firstly, let’s clarify the “line” – only the original tiles on common areas are Common Property and therefore the responsibility of the Owners Corporation; that’s the floor, any walls that adjoin other Lots, and any walls that also the outside walls of the Building.
Secondly, any replacement of those original tiles by Owners must receive the Owners Corporation’s written consent in advance of the works being undertaken, and it is usual for any written consent to include a statement to the effect that all future works to maintain, repair, and replace those replacement tiles is the responsibility of the Lot Owner (the current one, and all subsequent Owners).
With regard to your Executive Committee Members’ proposal to introduce a special levy for their own benefit, that would be in conflict with the Developer’s obligations under the Defects Warranty, would also deny them their legal right to be given the first opportunity to undertake corrective works, and likely void their responsibility for any other related works in future. Furthermore, that special levy would require the agreement of a majority of Owners at a General Meeting; surely you could muster enough support to knock that on the head!
Looks like the topic of managing public housing sub-leases in Strata is either proving too difficult or there’s a simply a lack of interest; us strayians do have short memories!
Perhaps this observation will ignite the debate.
I’ve noticed a proliferation of NGO’s whose names typically include words such as “neighbourhood” or “community” who, with funding by NSW Housing or by NSW Family & Community Services, are taking up Head Leases in Strata Properties in order to provide accommodation to their “clients”.
Perhaps the NSW Government’s recent tabling (to Parliament) of the Community Housing Providers Bill 2012 is an acknowledgement of the above proliferation, and of the need to at least know the extent of it.
Much of these accommodation acquisitions (their words) is short-term (8-12 weeks in the case of our Plan), and possibly because the organisations holding the Head Lease are not using their own funds to do so, they’re paying on average 40% above the market rental in our Plan.
Understandably, these lucrative short-term sub-lease arrangements are proving attractive to our Proprietors, whose Agents have as I understand it been made aware of the needs of our local neighbourhood and community associations.
A proliferation of these short-term sub-leases will undoubtedly undermine and hamper our E/C’s efforts to educate our residents about strata living, and in particular of their need to respect the amenity of others. In fact, in my absence our E/C Chair has recently assisted one tenant to settle-in, they’ve departed, and we this week received another individual who has never lived in a Strata Community and who, sadly, has apparently never before experienced a need to socialise, and quite frankly doesn’t want to because as she sees it, she’s in transit.
OK, I accept the social justice view that such individuals should be able to integrate (if that’s the accepted term) with the wider community, but surely there needs to be some transitional stage that doesn’t involve placing them in the middle of a Strata Community, where the learning process involved in such close-proximity living that has by necessity certain “rules” (By-laws) to which all must abide, is difficult enough for long-term residents! Wouldn’t a stand-alone property be more suitable as a transition?
So our AGM took the view that if it’s good enough for NSW Residential Tenancies Act to permit Proprietor/Landlords to “withhold consent to a transfer or sub-letting relating to the whole tenancy or residential premises whether or not it is reasonable to do so”, then it should be good enough for the O/C to Register a Special By-Law requiring Proprietors to give it 14 days written notice of any intention to sub-lease their Lot/s.
I acknowledge the limitations of Cl49 of the SCMA, but once our Special By-Law is Registered, the O/C will at least have a window of opportunity to explain to Proprietors the down-sides of sub-lease arrangements of the types that we’re now experiencing.
Ground-breaking; gees I hope so1
Yeah, thanks Strugs and Jimmy.
Frankly I don’t know which way to go, and I know that its a play-on-words, but I was hoping for an “out” to Cl 49 by considering a requirement for Proprietors to seek and obtain the O/C’s consent for sub-leases only (i.e as opposed to prime leases).
The E/C didn’t contemplate that the O/C would ever refuse to grant its consent, but rather that Proprietors wouldn’t want to jump through that hoop, and that even if they did, the O/C could at least express its concerns before a sub-lease was consented.
Clutching at straws, but any further thoughts anyone?
The Whale’s been quiet for a while, as he and Mrs Whale have been off on their “grey nomad” trip around this wonderful country of ours, albeit with sporadic access to the internet.
I’ve been following the Housing NSW story in the SMH, and even had a call from the Reporter who wrote the article and the follow-up (which I haven’t seen).
Anyhow …. I’m back, and somewhat shocked to today find out that one of our Owners has made his Unit available to a local Community Centre that, under a Government Funded Scheme, “supports families who are at risk of losing their tenancy because they may have fallen behind in the rent and/or received an eviction notice.”
Whilst I acknowledge (with experience) that not all Public Housing Tenants are By-Law ignorant ratbags, I fear that there’s a high propensity for people who require “community assistance” because they have not paid their rent and/or have received an Eviction Notice for goodness knows what with regard to their previous rental to behave badly.
Right now, I don’t know what arrangement has been entered into by our Owner, or about the nature of the likely sub-tenancy agreement for these psuedo Public Housing Tenants, but I’ll use S119 of the SCMA in an attempt to find out.
I think I know the answer to this question, but what opinions do readers have have about a Special By-Law preventing (ideally) or at least placing conditions on sub-tenancy arrangements in toto, that is irrespective of whether it’s Housing NSW or anyone else?
jeff.f,
One further point if signs again appear anywhere on Common Property. Remember that whilst your O/C is fully empowered to remove them, the signs are the property of the RE Agency who had them placed there.
In those circumstances, as EC Secretary I always e-mail the RE Agency concerned to advise that their signage has been removed and why, and to advise that it will be held for seven (7) days for collection by them, after which time it will be disposed of.
Maybe ask your Sec. or Strata Manager to do that, just to cover your bases!
Each of the items that you have listed involves Special By-Laws, and requires a Special Resolution at your General Meeting where no more than 25% of those Proprietors in attendance (personally or by proxy) vote against the Motion.
I’m a non-smoker, but I’d urge you not to become too caught up in the recent publicity about non-smoking By-Laws, particularly as I seriously doubt that an Owners Corporation can create a Special By-Law that prevents residents from smoking inside their Lots.
In any event, remember that even if passed, none of the items mentioned in your post has any legal standing unless each is properly Registered on the Title of your Plan.
Best of luck!
Pete – the amendment can be resolved by simple majority, but the resultant vote on the (amended) motion to change the By-Law would need to be by special resolution.
Your Strata Manager is right! The initial Inspection is undertaken before Council issues the Occupation Certificate for your building, and future inspections must be undertaken annually, and typically on the anniversary of the date that the initial Inspection was completed.
The requirements are spelt out in the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation (2010) – most of what you require may be found here.
Albert – in response to the second part of your post (para 5), you have put forward an entirely sensible proposal, but I suspect that your Strata Manager (SM) maybe having difficulties getting a decision out of your Plan’s Executive Committee, and/or is in a quandary about the concept of you arranging works on the Common Property (i.e. the shower floor and any common walls).
For a number of reasons that I won’t go into here, I’m inclined to the view that it’s better for the Owners Corporation (O/C) to arrange for the repairs to its Common Property (albeit via the SM), and for you to speak with individual tradespersons as they arrive at your Property about separately quoting the additional work that you want done, and your payment for that.
Remember that the SM works for you (as a member of the O/C), so it’s entirely appropriate for you to put pen-to-paper and (politely) put forward your proposal regarding the concurrent renovation of the bathroom, to insist on more than one quote for the components (yours & the O/C’s), and to insist upon a timely decision particularly as delays will almost certainly lead to even further damage to the Common Property (incentive).
Copy everything to the members of your Executive Committee, and follow-up with each of them personally.
Sorry “powers“, but I really can’t give you a response that you’ll be satisfied with, however I will say that:
- you definitely wouldn’t want Hunter Water to do and charge for the work ($$);
- Hunter Water’s responsibility ends at the point where your Plan’s water line connects to theirs
- you and other Proprietors would each pay about $20pa for the water supply’s availability if none of you used water, and
- what each of you does use costs about $0.002 / litre.
Ask Hunter Water for some advice on the options to rectify the leakage, and make sure that you ask about local companies who undertake internal re-lining of water supply pipelines; depending upon the topography that process may be much cheaper option for your Owners Corporation.
Good luck with it all!
On the basis of personal experience, I haven’t found Strata Managers to be of much benefit IF you can find a Proprietor who’s interested enough and prepared to learn enough to manage the Plan’s affairs; this Forum is a font of excellence with regard to the latter!
Not all Plan’s require the same breadth of strata knowledge and a committed Proprietor can, with the assistance of the Executive Committee, save your Plan thousands of dollars in Management Fees, Disbursements, and operations / maintenance costs – not because all Strata Managers are uncommitted, but moreso because a committed Proprietor has only one Plan to worry about; their own!
However if you do want to terminate your Plan’s Agency Agreement with its current Strata Manager (SM) and engage another one, you first need to check the termination clause in that Agreement where you’ll likely find that you need to provide the current SM with 3 months written notice after a General Meeting of Owners has resolved to support the change.
As for strata management ratings — I don’t know of any, but I’m sure that an internet search would provide sufficient numbers of SMs from whom proposals could be sought after you’ve scoped what services your Plan requires.
I’ve responded to your post.