Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
That’s what I like about Flat Chat; everyone’s entitled to an opinion.
Ok my reference to “the CTTT” was a slip-of-the-typing-finger, but substitute “the Fair Trading Tribunal” that shares mediators with the former, and my original comments stand; both claim to represent authority without actually possessing any of their own.
So back to my idealist opinions.
It’s a bit of a long-bow to suggest that Frustrated Strata Dweller’s (FSD) Committee is behaving corruptly; ignorantly perhaps, but that’s no reason for Proprietors such as the FSD to themselves abandon, circumvent, or breach the established processes and legislated provisions of Strata Law.
In my experience in Strata and elsewhere, Committees don’t collectively behave as idiots on purpose but rather, as I have already suggested, out of ignorance, through provocation, or perhaps due to the influences of one Member.
That’s why I suggested that FSD follows established processes by drafting some Agenda Items for, and requesting the convening of an EGM to discuss and agree upon matters of common interest, including FSD’s proposed alterations to Common Property.
It may well be that the Committee as a whole hasn’t even considered formalising access to FSD’s Lot for the installation and ongoing maintenance / repair of the Common Property items already installed within, let alone what’s now additionally being requested, and all in circumstances where at some time FSD may not even be the Proprietor of that Lot.
That’s why I’m again suggesting that FSD drafts the Agenda Items that he/she wants considered at an EGM and delivers those to the Strata Manager and/or Committee Secretary, with copies to EC Members, perhaps including a preamble to explain the implications of the Committee’s current position, which I’ll bet not every Committee Member is even aware about.
That approach can only strengthen FSD’s case should things go down the path suggested by the Urban Spaceman, and mediation still becomes necessary.
The CTTT’s processes are far too ad-hoc, and consequently the outcomes they produce are unpredictable – so I’d avoid them like to proverbial plague, and I certainly wouldn't antagonise your EC and breach Strata Laws by making unauthorised additions to the Common Property (CP).
I can’t imagine how a transformer and conduit would be particularly disruptive to the use of your garage, or even to the aesthetics of your Lot, and whilst that’s for you to determine, your EC needs to concurrently consider the ongoing responsibility for maintenance / replacement of the transformer, cabling, and conduit and agreed access arrangements to your Lot for that purpose.
So I’d turn the whole thing around by writing to the Secretary of your EC with a request for the matter of the placement of CP on your Lot, together with the agreed process for the installation of and the maintenance access for that CP and for that already installed on your Lot, to be placed on the Agenda for the EGM – together with your item regarding those CP alterations.
You may wish to draft those Agenda Items yourself.
In that way, if there’s no EGM nothing is resolved, and as significantly, you’'re not displaying the same “forceful” behaviour as your EC, and rather, just following the correct discussion and decision-making procedures for such matters in a Strata Community.
I would have thought that your Agent should have told you that the costs were your responsibility at the same time that he told you to contact an electrician. So my guess is that as the account has come in higher than the Agent anticipated, and as they don't think that the Landlord will be happy with the expense, they're simply attempting to off-load the responsibility for payment to you.
The electrician's invoice would (I assume) have been sent to the Agent, so in consideration of that and the other circumstances, I'd refuse payment.
Can you be a little more specific; like are we talking about a home unit or a villa / townhouse, and whereabouts within your Lot is the existing / proposed equipment to be installed, and by what means is your E.C. applying force?
Sorry, but it's difficult for me and other regular contributors to Flat Chat to provide any worthwhile advice in the absence of these and any further specifics that you think may be useful.
Jimmy has provided some sound advice, and if you get the job, you will also need to consider that whilst working in the way that you propose is clearly with the best of intent, it gives rise to some obligations that your current Contractor would have addressed by taking out Public Liability and Workers’ Compensation Insurance, and by providing your Owners Corporation with Tax Invoices so that your Plan’s Accounts can satisfy an audit.
It may in fact be easier for you to use the relevant Provisions of the Legislation that covers the management of strata plans in your State to enable you to be paid as an Executive Committee (EC) Member.
As an example, Sect.25 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) enables members of an Executive Committee to be paid “in recognition of their services to the Owners Corporation…”.
The fact that “services” is not defined is advantageous, but the disadvantage is that payments made in this way have to be determined at a AGM, and only then for services provided since the previous AGM.
So if you opted for this methodology, you would have to work for 12 months before being paid, but then again, your O/C’s Insurance may cover you as a voluntary worker if you sustained an injury during that pre-payment period.
I think you need to do some more homework, but good luck with your initiative!
ilovebbq – Clearly, your Strata Manager is being difficult, but nonetheless he/she is correct in that the “address for service of notices” shown for each Proprietor is the correct one for sending “notices” such as the one to convene your EGM.
I know that it may be difficult, but in order to ensure that you indeed “do things properly”, you should write to your Strata Manager with a request to Inspect the Records under the provisions of S108, and I’m suggesting you do this in writing rather than by e-mail as you need to include the prescribed fee of $30 to cover the first hour of “inspecting”.
The Strata Manager then has 3 days to advise you of the date / time when the Records will be available for your inspection, and if he/she doesn’t do that, you can write again telling the Strata Manager when you will be coming into his/her Office to conduct that inspection – which can be on any day/time within their office hours that suits you provided it's within 10 days from when you wrote the first request.
As I said, this seems a lot of mucking around, but as you do want to ensure that you do things properly, this is the way to achieve that.
The correct procedure is for you to make application to your Strata Manager to inspect your Plan's records under Sect 108 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996).
The Scheduled Fee is $30 for one hour of “inspecting” pus $15 for every 30 mins after that.
You can take whatever notes you like and/or you can photocopy any pages (although your Strata Manager will probably charge you for the latter), but you can't take any original papers from the file.
lovebbg,
About terminating your current Agent.
Your Agent (Strata Manager) must think that their appointment is legal, so check the “termination” clause in the Strata Management Agency Agreement that your Owners Corporation (O/C) should have signed with that Agent.
You may find that your O/C has to give 3 months written notice before you can terminate the Agreement, and that approach may well be easier (and quicker) than the CTTT's adjudication process.
About the water meter – you really should let a Licensed Plumber access your garage. Just make sure that you get a Certificate of Compliance from the Plumber as that will tell you exactly what work has been done.
That's a difficult one given the prescribed obligations of an Owners Corporation (O/C) to maintain its Common Property, but in this case it appears to me that as your O/C did attempt to make the repairs, and those attempts were frustrated by the Proprietors, your E.C's letter regarding the capping of costs should be enforceable.
I say “should be” because IF the matter was taken to the Consumer Trade & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT), it may be claimed that your O/C could have used the Provisions of S65 1(a) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act to enter the Lot and make the repairs.
One further point in your O/C's favour may be that IF the original blockage was between a Lot Owners' Fixture (e.g. a toilet suite) and the “gully trap” where the pipe meets the Common Property Sewer (i.e. one serving more than one Lot) and the cause of the blockage was not structural (i.e. a failure of the sewer), then the original repair would have been the Lot Owners' responsibility.
Good luck, and I for one would be interested to read about the outcome.
You’re so right Jimmy!
When, as Secretary of our self-managed Plan, I first started dealing with Rental Agents / Property Managers generally over reminders to pay my Proprietors' Levies (their Landlords') on our Owners Corporation's Terms, not theirs, and occasionally about the behaviour of their Tenants, it became immediately apparent that anything whatsoever to do with “Strata” was a problem.
Initially I thought that my approach may have been wrong, so I deliberately set about trying to keep everything at a more personal level as opposed to being a “StrataFascist” by talking about Levy Notices, Tenancy Agreements, Common Property, and By-Laws.
But when that approach too was greeted by disinterest, I took the opportunity to speak with some of the Strata Managers around town, who confirmed that same problem, which they explained as arising from a long-standing and distinct void in the chain of communication between Strata Managers and Property Managers, and a “conflict of responsibilities” between the two.
Personally, I find that “conflict of responsibilities” quite odd, as both Property and Strata Managers have Proprietors as their Clients, but that conflict is certainly there.
Even taking into account that some Rental Agents / Property Mangers probably have Proprietors / Landlords on their backs about vacant investment properties, in my opinion nothing excuses the “attitude” and the lack of knowledge exhibited by Property Managers; including about their own roles and responsibilities.
In one extreme example of the “horrific”, one Property Manager who was at the time inspecting a Unit in our Plan subsequent to a tenancy, loudly abused another Member of our Executive Committee (EC) and myself after we had made an approach about the removal of some rubbish that had been left on the Common Property by those tenants. Other Residents who emerged from their Units after hearing the commotion were also abused!
Understandably, I discussed the matter with the Office of Fair Trading, who said that neither I nor the Owners Corporation could lodge a Complaint about the behaviour of this Property Manager (who is also a Licensee), firstly because we were not “Clients” of that person, and secondly because Complaints are generally limited to matters of professional behaviour; as if this incident didn’t impact on the individual’s professionalism.
I don’t wish to make this post into a personal rant, so back to the point…
In recent years I’ve been raising tenancy issues directly with my Proprietors (with limited success; but that’s another story), and have limited my dealings with Property Managers / Rental Agents to fending-off their repeated attempts to have the Owners Corporation (O/C) attend to every conceivable repair, and if not to claim those on its Insurance.
The NSW Office of Fair Trading (OFT) needs to ensure that Property Managers have a modicum of knowledge about how some aspects of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) interact with the NSW Residential Tenancies Act and Regulation (2010), and the NSW Landlord & Tenant Act / Regulations/ Amendments; I’ve had several Agents who had no idea whatsoever about S119 Noticifations and the fact that they shouldn’t just affix their signage all over Common Property!
(PS – I must finish my rant by advising that I after several letters, I was able to speak with the C.E.O. of the National Franchise Operation with whom that “horrific” Agent’s Business was at the time a Member, and after she similarly abused him, the Franchise was withdrawn).
500Z – Your Strata manager is half right.
If the bathroom floor tiles are those originally laid when the building was constructed, and they’re leaking, then that’s a Common Property repair and the responsibility of the Owners Corporation (O/C).
If however you want to remove the tiles as part of an overall renovation, then before you do anything, you need to provide your O/C with written advice of your proposal, including all materials to be used, tradespeople and their work times, and seek the O/C’s written consent to those works.
In these latter circumstances it is customary for an O/C’s consent to incorporate a provision that makes the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the renovated area/s within your bathroom a matter for the Owner from time to time of your Lot (Unit).
There is no requirement for a Special By-Law unless your O/C wishes to formalise a blanket approval with standard conditions to enable all Lot Owners to renovate the bathrooms within their Lots, and if that’s their desire then the O/C should pay to draft and register that document; of course, as a member of that O/C you would pay your share via your normal Levies.
Hope that helps!
KerryR – I can't think of an easy way to resolve your problem, but on the basis of the reasonable attitude that you've obviously adopted I'm sure you'll find a way forward.
So in recognition of the fact that you were aware of the positioning of the hotwater system at the time of your purchase, here are a couple of suggestions; neither easy, but I'd suggest that you do the initial leg-work and take the results and your then preferred option to your Owners Corporation (O/C):
- Contact NSW Land & Property Information (incorporating the old Land Titles Office) and discuss with them the options for a Strata Sub-Division. That procedure would remove the 3.2m2 from your Lot and place it on the Common Property (CP) and adjust your Unit Entitlement accordingly, and whilst it involves the same process as Strata Titling a whole building, the costs of doing so are proportionate to the area of land involved; in your case a mere 3.2m2.
- Arrange for a Plumber (preferably one used by your O/C) to provide some advice regarding whereabouts on the CP the hotwater system could be practicably be relocated, the indicative costs of doing that, and the disadvantages to the O/C of leaving the system where it is (e.g. emergency access). This may cost you a service call, but it's worth the expense.
By doing the leg-work yourself you will not only be better informed, and better able to decide upon your preferred solution, but you'll demonstrate to your O/C a determination to see the problem resolved.
Beejay – that's a reasonably good outcome, but I'm not sure about the pipe being entirely your problem or that of the O/C.
The fact that the Water Authority is fixing the leak confirms my initial thoughts that because the tap controls the water supply to the whole Plan, it's their responsibility, as is the section of pipe from their Main to that tap.
So whilst I don't know how much of that section of pipe (above) is on the service corridor / council verge and how much is on your property, I'd suggest you ask the Water Authority about relocating or diverting part of the section of pipe that leads from their Main to the isolating tap, so that the tap's then on Common Property.
It would then be the O/C's responsibility to relocate or divert the section of pipe after the isolating tap so that it rejoins the section that connects with the individual meters to Lots within the Plan.
Sorry for the somewhat complex explanation.
JeremyS – your initial thoughts are correct, and as Chris has suggested, there's no easy answer.
The leaking pipe is in an internal wall so it's not Common Property, and IF it can also be confirmed by inspection at the time of the repair that the leaking pipe services only that Lot (and as it's a bathroom supply that's likely), then all repairs are the responsibility of the Lot Owner where the leak occurred.
If that Owner has contents insurance, that should cover all investigatory and consequential costs, including those of the Building Manager, but it won't cover the costs of the repair itself.
Not wishing to complicate matters, but if the Owner doesn't have insurance, and as the Owners Corporation has a vested interest in ensuring that repairs to its Common Property are properly undertaken, it could offer to arrange those repairs and to seek an agreement from the Owner of the “leaking pipe” to make a negotiated contribution.
Beejay – I know that this doesn't resolve your entire problem, but if the tap that you're referring to isolates the supply to the whole Plan, then it's likely to be the property of your local Water Supply Authority, and they're responsible for all maintenance & repairs.
I'd suggest you contact that Water Supply Authority yourself, and tell them that the main tap is leaking badly and that the water is affecting your garden; that may be a slight exaggeration, but it will get a timely response.
Try to be home when the maintenance people are on-site, and ask them about the procedure involved in having the tap relocated. They may not know the detail, but they'll steer you in the right direction.
I know that you may be doing your Owners Corporation's (O/C) work, but at least in this way you'll know more about the situation, and you'll be in a better position to make your point to that O/C and the Strata Manager.