• This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
  • Creator
    Topic
  • #61261
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      UPDATED: Feb 10. With Australia’s borders about to open to overseas tourists, there is considerable confusion over who can and can’t let their flats a
      [See the full post at: Strata residents dodge holiday let by-law bans]

      The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #61338
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster
      Chat-starter

        I’m wondering if I should hand in my Strataguru badge.  I have committed the worst sin of which anyone writing about strata can ever be guilty – I assumed.

        I assumed that by-laws banning short-term lets in Sydney apartment blocks applied to everyone.  But no. Resident owners and full time tenants can side-step any ban by showing that the flats are their principal place of residents.  It’s only absentee investors who will be affected by the bans.

        We shouldn’t be surprised – the NSW government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any restrictions on airbnb and their ilk.

        Now we find they don’t exist for residents, apart from the limit of 180 nights in Sydney.

        I’m off to write “Assume makes an ass of u and me” 1000 times as punishment.

        The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
        #61343
        TrulEConcerned
        Flatchatter

          If a by-law allows a full time tenant to do something that is not available to an absentee investor, is such a by law “harsh” as per s. 139(1) that provides that a by-law must not be “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” and hence ripe for a challenge?

          #61349
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster
          Chat-starter

            … is such a by law “harsh” as per s. 139(1) that provides that a by-law must not be “harsh, unconscionable or oppressive” and hence ripe for a challenge?

            I believe the NSW Planning thinking is that a tenant or owner has a current and ongoing relationship with the building and its residents and so can be held personally accountable when things have gone wrong (and they get back from skiing in Aspen). So it doesn’t discriminate against investors because they are not subject to community scrutiny and pressure.  But, hey, anything can be challenged and this one surely will be, one way or another.

            The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
            • This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by .
            #67731
            Sammy
            Flatchatter

              In Victoria we have the same problem in a 8 unit apt block in supposedly a leafy upmarket expense suburb. The chairperson of BC did not see fit to declare that she runs a 5day block either BnB bedrooms or the entire apt which is pet friendly even though guests would need to come down stairs to the front door for calls of nature and animals are not capable of being far away from the entrance. Our SM company is just ignoring the issue along with fact we DO NOT HAVE separate Water Meters and gave the answer a straight out NO when sent a link to a website of a well known and respectable company that can do individual meters with the minimum of bother and it is not necessary for all units to comply if they do not want.

              Can anyone assist on how to handle it Please.   Sammy

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