Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
On of the things that the Office of Fair Trading is good at is their Publications, so you can get all the information you require here: https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/About_us/Publications/ft191.pdf
I'll answer the easiest of your questions first — the existing Special By-Law for the solar hotwater system can be amended so that it applies generically to the entire common property (roof); use this Form https://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/25550/15CB_v3-1.pdf
With regard to the wording of the amended Special By-Law, you can be as prescriptive as you like concerning the elevation of the systems, obstructing views, the need for structural engineers' reports, damage during installation, responsibility for on-going maintenance / repairs etc etc; just don't leave room for ambiguity and interpretations.
Your O/C is actually granting to its Proprietors a license to use the Common Property, whether that's the roof or the ground, so the requirements for the heat-pump could easily be incorporated; just keep the wording simple.
I can never fathom why Strata Managers have this attraction to Special By-Laws in circumstances where a simple authorisation from the O/C, incorporating a statement about who's responsible for on-going maintenance and repairs, would suffice.
In your case, the false ceiling is common property and the existing light fitting is yours, so just have a licensed electrician replace that fitting with a combined light / heat lamp and get on with your (warmer) life.
Then, as Jimmy suggests, make moves to have that L&PI Memorandum adopted at your next AGM.
In response to Struggler's last post, thus far I've (hopefully) been exercising due-diligence in terms of OH&S on the Common Property by:
- Making sure that all Contractors we use from time-to-time provide their Workers Comp., Public Liability, and Trade License details; just the Insurer, Policy Number, and Expiry Date in the case of the former two, and;
- Completing a “Risk Assessment & Control Plan” (in 2006), by implementing the prioritised corrective actions, and by reviewing the Plan annually at the AGM & following EC Meeting.
I'm struggling (sorry) with what more to do now, because the WH&S Legislation appears to be yet another job creation scheme for Lawyers & Consultants, another instance of Government shooting-from-the-hip in order to resolve some perceived problem, and all without the slightest clue about how that Legislation can be implemented on-the-ground.
However well-intentioned the Lawyers may be, Struggler's right about the mumbo-jumbo, because both they and the so-called experts can only provide an interpretation of the Legislation based on their opinions.
My non-expert opinion is that as the O/C of an entirely residential Plan is not “conducting a business or undertaking”, then such a Plan is exempt; in fact I think that'’s precisely what the WH&S Legislation intended.
So for now at least I'm sticking with our Plan's practical approach to due-diligence, particularly as we're self-managed — however depending upon the extent of their authority under their Agreements, Strata Managers may do well to carefully consider their obligations under WH&S Act because they are “conducting a business or undertaking” in a Strata Titled environment.
I have no axe to grind either way, but in one of my past lives (at GM level in large State-Owned Water Authority) I've seen both PVC sewer pipes and internally re-lined VC pipes that have been extensively damaged by larger tree roots.
Conversely, where the conditions are “normal” I've seen both materials last for 25+ years.
Whilst the epoxy lining used in the relining process is continuous (no joins) and that does indeed prevent the ingress of fine tree roots, if the trees that you're referring to are within a few metres of the sewer pipe, then their larger roots will lift and/or depress sections of the the pipe, and blockages due to sewage residues inside (as opposed to fine roots from outside) will still occur and mechanical “cutters” can't be used to clear those.
Whatever pipe replacement method your Plan prefers, I'd first speak with a couple of experienced Contractors about the options to relocate a new sewer away from the trees altogether, as even if that work is completed in sections over time in order to stage the costs, it's the only long-term solution.
Good luck with Local Government; I never had much success.
First of all, whilst the wording of Motions on the Agenda for your AGM may be amended so long as their intent is not altered, they can’t simply be rescinded; the Meeting must resolve each Motion in the affirmative or otherwise.
Your Secretary is asking you to take on her role or that of your Strata Manager by expecting you to obtain quotes.
Why not just reword your Agenda Item to something like “That competitive quotes be obtained for the purchase and installation of ……., and that the installation should then proceed provided the total costs do not exceed $……..” ?
Internal relining is a well proven technique, that is widely used by Water Authorities. It is rarely cost effective against the replacement pipework using more modern materials such as PVC, unless significant sections of the existing infrastructure is damaged and excavation works to replace it is difficult (e.g. rock, trees), and remediation (e.g. to landscaping) is extensive.
Hi “Considerate” – All you can do it to abide absolutely by the Provisions of the SCMA by:
- Only giving the minimum 72 hours notice before the Meeting
- Having a very “tight” Agenda, because only those Items may be discussed at the Meeting
- Ensuring that the wording of all Items is very prescriptive, so that discussions are better focused
- Have the Chair limit the scope of any comments from the floor to align with the (prescriptive) scope of the Item/s under discussion, OR as a last resort decline to accept such comments altogether
- Omit any out-of-order discussions from the Minutes, as people such as your “trouble-makers” often derive gratification from reading their own names / comment in the Minutes; so deny them that.
As much as I personally detest the approach that I've suggested, it's likely that your trouble-makers will detest it also and abandon their coup.
Letterboxes are Common Property, and unless your Plan has a Special By-Law to the contrary, the Owners Corporation (O/C) is responsible for all maintenance and repairs.
Depending upon the numbers of Lots / Letterboxes, it may be necessary for an Item to be placed on the Agenda for your next AGM so that your O/C can, on the basis of improved security, resolve to allocate sufficient funds for the necessary upgrade works to the Letterboxes and by the sound of it for improvements to the Building's security access system.
If the timing of your next AGM is too far away, it may be worth your while to upgrade the lock on your own Letterbox, and to seek a reimbursement from your O/C; just advise your Executive Committee Secretary or Strata Manager beforehand.
If what you’re saying is that your Tenant is now 6 weeks behind in rent payments, and that your Property Manager (Rental Agent) has not issued an eviction notice, then you should instruct your Property Manger to immediately issue the Tenant with a “Non-Payment Termination Notice”.
You need to act quickly, as again if I’m interpreting your post correctly, your Tenant’s Bond will very shortly be insufficient to cover the rent owed.
Under the terms of a “Non-Payment Termination Notice”, the Tenant is required to vacate the premises in 14 days unless they EITHER pay all rent owing OR enter into a formal Repayment Plan with you (as Landlord) – and with which you agree.
Once the matter is resolved, I’d change Property Managers!!
In which State are you located?
Without knowing the layout of your Plan it's difficult to say, but experience tells me that requiring dilapidation reports on (only) those Lots that could conceivably be affected by your proposed renovations, including affects due to any structural alterations to load-bearing walls and due to construction activities (e.g. vibration) is a prudent move by your Strata Manager.
However your Strata Manager works for the Owners Corporation (you), so if you think that what's being required is over-the-top, you should immediately put your point-of-view in writing, including any supportive information from your builder, to the Secretary of your Executive Committee (EC), and offer to meet with the EC and your Strata Manger to discuss the matter.
I'd be interested to know the outcome, because whilst dilapidation reports are good “insurance”, they're not legally required unless as part of a Local Government Approval, and there are other options if your EC insists on or supports the Strata Manager's current position.
The Owner or Agent of the rental apartment is required to provide the Owners Corporation of your Mum’s Plan with details of the Tenant’s Name, the Term of their Lease etc (S109 Strata Schemes Management Act 1996); the Strata Manager would have that detail and of course the Landlord’s details.
It is also a condition of the Lease that the occupants of the rental apartment comply with the Plan’s By-Laws, and the frequency / duration of the noise that your Mum’s experiencing and the underground BBQ are clearly in Breach of those By-Laws.
So after taking into consideration the fact that the Strata Manager has already written to the problem tenants with no affect, I’d recommend a two-pronged approach:
- Contact the Strata Managers (SM) and request that they initiate procedures to issue the Tenants with two (2) Notices to Comply ; one for the noise and one for the improper use of the Common Property, and with the regard to the noise, ask the SM to additionally include a letter advising those Tenants that the Owners Corporation will additionally seek Noise Abatement Orders against them in the Local Court if they don’t comply fully with the terms of that Notice.
- Ask the Strata Manager to copy the above to the Rental Agent and to the Proprietor / Landlord of the rental apartment, and again include a separate letter advising the Proprietor that he/she may be held legally liable for any continuing Breach/s of the Plan’s By-Laws by the Tenants (there is a legal precedent for this), and requesting them to have their Agent follow-up with regard to their Tenant’s non-compliance with the terms of their Lease (which requires compliance with By-Laws).
Hopefully, that two-pronged approach will work, but if it doesn’t, I’m afraid that the only remaining recourse is to seek Police involvement as a back-up to the O/C actually seeking Noise Abatement Orders OR lodging an Application for Orders with the Strata Division of the NSW Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) where fines of up to $550 may be imposed against the Tenants (as residents of a Strata Plan). Regrettably, an O/C is not currently able to lodge an Application to the CTTT’s Tenancy Division where eviction orders can be made, as it sounds to me like that’s what is really required in the circumstances that you describe.
I assume the circumstances were that the Tenants claimed that he/she vacated because the lift was out-of-service.
That being the case, that Tenant would have been hard-pressed to convince a reasonable person (or even the N.S.W C.T.T.T.) that that was the only option; otherwise every resident above level 2 would have done likewise!
If you're the Landlord, you could have offered to reduce the rent during the 10 week period that you describe; not that you were compelled to, just as your Owners Corporation would not be compelled to compensate you in that or indeed any other similar circumstance, if that's what your seeking advice about.
Strictly speaking and in the circumstances that you describe, Tenants can voluntarily terminate Leases with 14 days (fixed term) and/or 21 days (periodic term) written notice. In the former case, and except in a few excepted circumstances of which a lift upgrade is not one, the vacating Tenant is required to keep paying rent until the Landlord finds a new Tenant or until the fixed term expires.
So in summary – the answer is that:
- In limited circumstances the Tenant is responsible, in which case an application for costs could be made to the CTTT or similar.
- The Landlord could make a Claim for lost rent on any Insurance held
- The O/C (of which the Landlord is a part) is not responsible