[Ziggy]

The bylaw wants to stop owners who live in the building emailing the SC and SM. But we are writing to them about getting things done to/on common property eg upgrade/replace a 35 year old lift, stop illegal visitor parking, fixing the TV antenna, get CCTV in parts of the building etc. Some issues have taken years to be fixed.

The SM will send on our emails to the SC for them to action but they either ignore our emails, are hostile, or take forever to respond. So we have to email them all again. And again, until eventually we get a response that is helpful.

This bylaw would seem extremely unfair to the owner/occupiers.

[Ziggy]

I agree with dustyrusty. I wanted to take our SC to Fair Trading (and hence NCAT) but was told I couldn’t; that I could only take the OC to mediation.

Re DNA, the owners in our building have been asked to vote on a motion to create a special bylaw that is unfair and unjust to owner/occupiers. 

We therefore don’t want this motion approved because, if it is, we can be fined for requesting that common property be maintained in a good and serviceable state.

[Ziggy]

There’s only one difference in the holidaying mum leaving her car in a disabled spot for months and the workers in my apartment block parking all day, every day for months. At least the Strata Committee did something about it. Mine don’t and won’t.

[Ziggy]

At a recent meeting, the SC point blank refused to do anything about the illegal parking. Where to next?

[Ziggy]

Thanks so much everyone. Yes, the “balcony” is a roof over the units below, including mine. But it is also an extension of my upstairs balcony. I’ll try Fair Trading as the SM is not very helpful.

[Ziggy]

Just a tip Snoopy. If it is the case that you do need a bylaw, you don’t necessarily need the bylaw to get approval from the OC. Get the approval at a meeting before you spend money on a bylaw on the proviso, that once approved, or not, you will provide them with the bylaw, or not.

There are bylaw templates around, your SM should have one, so use that.

[Ziggy]

I have an update to this bizarre pebbles story. And some sticky questions.

At a recent strata meeting, the issue of the pebbles was on the agenda. I was told that the area where the pebbles lie, taking up about 8×4 metres, was sealed off by a fence as it was not to be used and was not safe. There is no outer balustrade to the building.

I was finally told that this was my property and therefore I had to remove the weeds and dirt myself. As the area is not safe to enter, I refused to do this adding that I asked they be removed back in 2014. I also added no tradies would enter the area as it was an OHS issue.

So where do I go from here? Do I get the OC to agree to a fence on the outer boundary? Do I get the SC to arrange for the removal of the pebbles as 1) they are on my property and 2) I had asked they not be returned there.

And what about my strata levies? Have I been paying for space I have not been allowed to use?

[Ziggy]

Thanks Jimmy I had advice from Fair Trading so the motion was definitely out of order. The OC were asked to vote again on a same motion which we had previously approved and that had not been revoked.

[Ziggy]

Hi Jimmy you said that one way of removing a member of the SC is to:

…apply to NCAT to have individual members of the committee and/or officers of the committee removed under Section 238 (below).

Do owners have to go to Mediation at the “chocolate teapot” ie Fair Trading before going to NCAT?

What about other breaches of the SSMA? Is it necessary to go to mediation there as well? I’m getting mixed messages from Fair Trading.

[Ziggy]

Hi Jimmy what are the rules then in NSW? I did read your other responses to this issue (Section 238)

[Ziggy]

Two years ago I wrote about this, wondering what to do.

I live in a unit that was built in 1983. My balustrade is only 850mm high and includes a wide foothold half way up, between the concrete base of the balustrade and the glass above. Children, and anyone else, can easily climb over the balustrade by using the foothold and fall to the ground below.

Other balustrades in the building appear the right height, but more importantly, have no footholds. One other balustrade has had a height extension placed on it. I have no idea if this is safe.

Five years ago, however, all the balustrades on level one were replaced because, according to the then SC, they were deemed rusty and needed to give the place a more modern look, as the said balustrades faced the street. The SC also wanted them replaced to abide by today’s BCA code. The OC voted by general resolution to approve the new balustrades.

My balustrade remains in its original state.

Funnily, I recently viewed one of the units on level one and discovered that a back balustrade ie not one facing the street has also had its balustrade “maintained” or is that repaired or upgraded.

Any thoughts?

[Ziggy]

Thanks SPC. So only those at the meeting can be appointed? Or they can write to the Chair of the meeting to let them know they would like to be on the SC? How can the SM outnumber them, then? A letter (or email?) could arrive just before the meeting?

[Ziggy]

Interesting conversation. When recently on my strata committee, I asked both the Strata Manager and the Strata Committee for a copy of the strata roll. Both refused saying it was up to the other party to give me a copy. Consequently I never received one from either.

At a recent General Meeting, I pointed out that a motion was out of order and that it should be declared thus. The SM refused to do this and the SC remained silent. 

Any thoughts on who is to blame here? And what SSMA breaches were both committing? 

I’m with Jimmy on this.

[Ziggy]

Fantastic stuff Jimmy. Quite frankly, I think there’s a great Four Corners story uncovering the horrors of Strataland. Or should that be Lalaland!

[Ziggy]

Thanks Jimmy for all this info. I do not believe the SC is acting in good faith (neither our Strata Manager). They are doing their best to malign a number of the owners who oppose them. We are seeking transparency, honesty and that the SC is carrying out their functions with due care and diligence.

If they don’t want something done that the owners have approved, they just stall. We then have to constantly request they do do something and then we get accused of complaining and writing too many emails, which the SM charges us for to read (per person not per email).

[Author]

Replies