[Ziggy]

Hi Jimmy, my SC are now wanting me to prove why the people who work in the building are parked illegally. I’ve said that if they that not visitors they are not parking legally. What more can I say? They are just refusing to do anything about it. This has  gone beyond common sense and the duties of the SC.

I emailed the SC saying that if nothing is done I will put a shortened version of the SC newsletter, which tells people not to park illegally, under the windscreens of the offenders. They say I can’t do that. Is that true?

[Ziggy]

Thanks Jimmy. I got another email from the SC saying I’m the only one who complains. Not so, as a previous owner used to break the windscreen wipers of offending cars. Plus, the SC didn’t live here and, as I’m retired, my guests/tradies come during the day.

[Ziggy]

I’m in the exactly same position as Costa. There have been quite a few breaches of the SSMA in my unit block.

Re getting elected onto the SC, most of us don’t want to because of personality clashes. Which is where it gets personal.

Just a question, if an owner can’t make the AGM, can they put their name up for election to the SC?

[Ziggy]

Thanks Jimmy. The SC put a notice on a door but that was ripped off within 24 hours. I asked for more notices and got none. I wrote a sign to place under windscreens, using the SC’s words, and was told off.

in the meantime, one of the people who parks here illegally, swore at me today when I pointed out that he couldn’t park in the visiter’s spots. It’s scary stuff!

[Ziggy]

I have read both pieces here – Jimmy’s and the unfortunate owner of Lot 89.

i have only one thing to say, it’s not about “the principle” it’s about the staggering 5,000 shades of grey that make up strata law.

[Ziggy]

Any thoughts on this FlatChat gurus?

[Ziggy]

Thanks Robert, what actually do you mean by “provided process is followed”? Prior to the OCs decision to resolve in favour of a new lift we were supplied with a consultant’s report. It made no mention of various suggestions about how we should decide whether we get a new lift or an upgrade.

We have now been supplied with a rewrite of the first report suggesting we shouldn’t get a new lift if we plan to sell the building within 10 years. None of this information was supplied with the first report. The OC has been told nothing about selling the building to developers or supplied further information which was available at the time of the first report.

We are being hoodwinked.

[Ziggy]

Thanks Scottie and Jimmy… that’s an interesting question about who owns the roof where the pebbles lie. It is an area that has been fenced off from owners; again, who knows why. The inner fencing in an illegal height and there is absolutely no fencing on the outer edge of the property, six floors above the ground below.

Funnily enough, the roof is my bedroom ceiling, so I wouldn’t complain to the owner!

[Ziggy]

Despite the above, can the couple still turn up to meetings (General ones as well) but only one can speak?

Can a partner (or child) of an owner turn up to meetings if there is only one owner? That is, they are not co-owners?

[Ziggy]

Thanks very much for this Jimmy; it is really helpful. I was wondering, however, if you could shed some light on the following?

At a GM last year, the OC in my building resolved in favour the following motion:

Minor works renovation bylaw pursuant to sections 110(6)(b) and 136 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 to make an additional by-law in the following terms:

Special By-law No.X Minor Renovations – Rights

1. On the conditions set out in this by-law and with the prior consent of the strata committee each Owner has the authority to carry out Minor Renovations to the common property in connection with the Owners’ lot, and, once installed, to maintain the approved Minor Renovations.
2. The owners’ corporation delegates its power to approve Minor Renovations to the strata committee.
3. The strata committee, when considering an owners’ proposal to conduct Minor Renovations may impose conditions on any approval and must not unreasonably withhold their approval.

At the GM, I asked could minor renovations include the following: double-glazed doors, sunshades, awnings, fixed outdoor seating, and/or wall pots. I was told that the list we had been given of minor works (similar to yours above) was “not limited” to just those items listed in the agenda.

At a recent SC meeting, the committee resolved to approve my installation of an awning on my balcony, which will be fixed to a common property fascia. (There was one there previously.) Now, however, they are they are saying I need to submit a separate bylaw from the one above to be included in a GM for the owners’ approval.

Therefore, has a bylaw already been approved for such things as the installation of an awning? If so, why do I need a separate bylaw? If not, is the work I’m doing “minor” or “major”?

[Ziggy]

Thanks so much Lady P. Your response has given me new hope.

[Ziggy]

Thanks so much Lady P and Scotlandx. My neighbour tried to write a bylaw (in collaboration with his lawyer) and was knocked back by the SM. The SM said my neighbour had to use a bylaw written by a lawyer recommended by the SM. 

I presume the same will happen if I write one. I will try though and ask that it be placed on the upcoming GM. But I guarantee, the SM will not accept it.

Could I just put the awning up, bearing in mind the previous approvals and the renovations to common property bylaw already passed?

[Ziggy]

The SM is no longer communicating with me. While I was on the SC, they refused to give me a copy of the strata roll, as did the SC. 

By the way, the same SM sends out minutes of meetings weeks after the due date, allows SC members to vote on issues without being financial, spends money on things without approval from the OC, and chairs all meetings despite the presence of the SC chair. They also take weeks to respond to issues such as flooding from broken pipes.

So, I would like to know about the legality of the previous approved renovations bylaw. Is that not valid?

[Ziggy]

Hi Lady P, I don’t believe there was a previous bylaw for an awning, despite two previous owners installing them; one on my property and one next door.

The SM doesn’t intend to deal with me any further and the SC are not responding to my emails for the bylaw template. At a previous meeting the SC agreed that I could install the awning although nothing came of this. And at the latest SC meeting it was resolved to approve the awning subject to me submitting a by-law for the owners approval. As I said, the SM said they would send me one but has now reneged.

I have followed all the appropriate rules and regulations and have supplied this to the SC.

It must be remembered, at a GM last year, the OC, including the SC obviously, approved a minor works to common property renovation bylaw.

[Ziggy]

I have an even more bizarre issue regarding bylaws and strata managers. At a recent SC meeting, it was approved that I can put an awning on a common property fascia, where there was one before.

At the meeting, the SM said they would forward me a copy of their Bylaw template to make things easier. When this did not turn up, I emailed the SM who said that the Bylaw was intellectual property and that they would not send it to me.

At a previous general meeting the OC resolved in favour of having a Bylaw that would allow owners to do minor works to common property. 

So where does that leave me? Do I still need a Bylaw, and, like mailbox, do I need to get a lawyer to write one?

[Author]

Replies