› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › CP and the Strata Committee › How can we ensure smoke alarms are working? › Current Page
This is my personal take. I accept that others may vehemently disagree.
I disagree with some of your response, but not vehemently
… smoke detectors are there to save lives not property. Therefore the risk to property is neither less nor more, without a smoke detector.
The risk is the same regardless of the intended purpose of the smoke detector. Smoke detectors alert people to fires, the sooner that occurs, the less damage will be done to the property.
The question is, should the OC be concerned about the effect on other lots and residents of a fire in one lot. The law implies not, but that doesn’t mean that other owners can’t or shouldn’t.
The Bylaw proposed by JT could be unenforceable.
Perhaps, but I’m looking at Section 122 which says “An owners corporation for a strata scheme may, by its agents, employees or contractors, enter on any part of the parcel of the scheme for the purpose of carrying out (a) work required or authorised to be carried out by the owners corporation in accordance with this Act …”
One of the take outs of the Cooper dog case, is that the OC cannot regulate the use of an owners lot. What one does behind closed doors is owners business.
Well, no, that’s not what the Cooper case said. It was resolved that strata schemes can’t have blanket by-laws that don’t allow for any variation or consideration of the circumstances of specific cases. As you’ll see from this story, a Tribunal subsequently allowed dogs to be banned, rather than all pets.
What you do behind closed doors may be no one else’s business, but only in so far as it doesn’t affect other owners or common property. You still can’t play your stereo at maximum volume all day, or renovate without notice or, in some cases, permission.
But let’s assume you are right and my suggested by-law is “unenforceable”? The only way to establish that is to breach an owner and let them challenge it at NCAT.
In my experience, most people will assume that an OC-dictated inspection of smoke alarms is generally a good thing (if irritating at the time) and go along with it, regardless of whether the by-law is technically valid or not (and I’m not convinced it isn’t).
If we agree that having smoke alarms is a good thing, wouldn’t the potential “encouragement” for the majority of people be worth the risk of losing a case at NCAT.
One final point, this website is replete with stories about strata lawyers and managers approving deterring by-laws that they must know would never stand up in court, but assuming they are unlikely to be challenged. Sometimes the end justifies the means.