• Creator
    Topic
  • #8568
    alfie
    Flatchatter

      We have just received notification that, in a complex of 10 units, our unit and one other will be required to pay for Asbestos and Work Health and Safety inspections for the complex. The reasoning for this is that if we did not holiday let, the Owners Corporation would not have otherwise incurred the cost. What is this about? Are only holiday makers vulnerable to asbestos? Is it actually possible for this to be OK? What if another owner decides next week to holiday let…

    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #17218
      Whale
      Flatchatter

        You’ve got me!!

        All I can think of is that if you’re in NSW where recent changes to work health and safety legislation affects Strata Schemes where business activities of some types are undertaken, usually in street level commercial lots, somebody may have suggested to your Owners Corporation (O/C) that holiday letting is a business, thereby making your Scheme liable to the provisions of that Legislation due to the activities of you and the other Owner who manage your lots in that way.

        Actually, it’s more accurate to say that the NSW Work Health & Safety Act (the Act) applies to Strata Schemes that are not entirely residential, and in my opinion if your Scheme is entirely residential then its exempt from the provisions of the Act and from its mandated audit requirements.

        That’s not to say that your Executive Committee shouldn’t itself keep an eagle-eye out for potential hazards on its Common Property, or even resolve to pay a Contractor to report on those matters, but that’s at your O/C’s discretion, and if it goes that way its obligation is to pay for it from the monies contributed to its Administrative Fund by all Owners, not just those who choose to holiday let their lots. 

        #17226
        scotlandx
        Strataguru

          I think Whale is right, it sounds like they have gone a bit overboard on the concept of “commercial”.  Even if you are holiday letting, it is still residential, same as if it was a normal tenancy arrangement.

          Setting that aside, I don’t think the owners corporation can decide that two lots are liable for the cost of the inspection unless they pass a by-law, and in that case the owners responsible for the costs would have to agree to the by-law.  I could be wrong, but l believe they are on shaky ground.  If they billed you, I would just refuse to pay it.

          #17230
          Cosmo
          Flatchatter

            @scotlandx said:
            I think Whale is right, it sounds like they have gone a bit overboard on the concept of “commercial”.  Even if you are holiday letting, it is still residential, same as if it was a normal tenancy arrangement.

            Setting that aside, I don’t think the owners corporation can decide that two lots are liable for the cost of the inspection unless they pass a by-law, and in that case the owners responsible for the costs would have to agree to the by-law.  I could be wrong, but l believe they are on shaky ground.  If they billed you, I would just refuse to pay it.

            I agree with scotlandx.  For NSW what constitutes Residential Property should follow the definition in the CONVEYANCING ACT 1919 – SECT 66Q.  

             

            This states at 1) (c) “residential property” is: a lot or lots (including a proposed lot or lots) … comprising not more than one place of residence alone, whether constructed or in  by CouponDropDown” href=”https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca1919141/s66q.html”>the course of construction, and including any place used or designed for use for a purpose ancillary to the place of residence.

             

            The definition of ‘place of residence’ is at section 3) of the same section of the Act.

             

            I think the wording rules out ‘boarding houses’ as residential property but not lots where there is a single tenancy such as a family or a few associates. 

             

            Where strata schemes may be in trouble is if they ’employ’ a caretaker or ‘on site manager’ or other workers eg cleaners directly (by directly I assume they mean not through a contractor).

             

            Please be advised the above is my own research and conclusion and for discussion only.  


            #17300
            alfie
            Flatchatter
            Chat-starter

              Thanks for the feedback – we did not receive a notice of the AGM, let alone that this topic would be discussed. No by-law was passed that I am aware of. Also, there were 2 members present and 1 proxy. Is this even a quorum?

              We have, however, received a bill for $413, which I have no intention of paying at this stage.

            Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.