• Creator
    Topic
  • #66206
    Arthur
    Flatchatter

      Considering responses to the previous post ‘Committee approving non-compliant flooring’ (below) and other advice, we have rewritten our hard flooring by-law. This modified by-law was approved at an AGM and is at the end of this post.

      The new by-law requires owners seeking to instal hard flooring to undertake an acoustic test before committee approval of installation. This is to demonstrate that the proposed flooring meets specified sound transmission standards (those recommended by the City of Sydney). Our committee often waives this requirement to make life easier and less costly for the owner seeking to install.

      Two questions:

      Can the Committee legally choose to wave a by-law requirement, particularly when this may enhance the value of one property to the detriment of other owners?
      If an owner (probably on the floor below) complains, and seeks written confirmation that the new floor meets the acoustic requirements (as provided for in the bylaw), and subsequent removal of a non-compliant floor, who should pay for the removal? Can the owner who installed the non-compliant floor seek compensation from Committee members who gave him permission to break the bylaw or the Owners Corporation (thereby increasing levies)?

      The by-law:

      SCOPE OF BY-LAW

      Pursuant to By-Law number 21, an owner or occupier must not lay or install any floor covering other than carpet on the lower boundary floor space of their lot without the prior written consent of the Owners Corporation.

      POWERS OF THE OWNERS CORPORATION

      The Owners Corporation shall have the following additional powers, authorities, duties and functions:

      i) the power to decide on type, style, design and specification of any floor covering installed pursuant to this By-Law;
      ii) the power to enter onto any part of the parcel for the purpose of inspecting any floor cover;

      iii) the power to order the removal of any floor covering installed in breach of this By-Law; and

      iv) the authority to recover the costs of removing and replacing any floor covering in a lot from a defaulting owner.
      OWNERS OBLIGATIONS
      i) The owner must ensure that the floor space does not transmit noise that is likely to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot, including (but not limited to) noise transmitted from the movement of persons or furniture.
      ii) An owner who wishes to change the flooring in his lot, other than from carpet to carpet, must first apply to the Strata Committee for approval, which will not unreasonably be withheld, provided the application contains sufficient information to enable the Strata Committee to satisfy itself that the requirements of this by law regarding noise transmission are met.

      iii) An application of an owner to the Strata Committee to change the flooring in his lot, must include a written report or a statement from a qualified acoustic consultant confirming that the proposed new floor/ceiling system will achieve an in-situ weighted standardised impact sound pressure level (L’nTw) of no greater than 55, measured as per the assessment procedures described in AS ISO 140.7 and AS ISO 717.2. Further, the Strata Committee reserves the right to require an acoustic test by an acoustic consultant of its choosing of the proposed flooring in the owners apartment at the owners expense prior to granting approval of the application.

      iv) Upon completion of the installation of the new floor covering, the owner must submit to the Strata Committee a written statement from the installation contractor confirming that the flooring specified in the owner’s application was installed in the specified unit and that the method of installation complied with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
      v) The Flooring Works must be undertaken at the cost of the owner.
      vi) The Strata Committee may, at any time, require an owner to provide written confirmation from an acoustic consultant approved by the Strata Committee, confirming that a floor/ceiling system meets the acoustical parameters outlined in this by-law. In the event that no such confirmation is forthcoming, the owner will bear all costs associated with the acoustic consultant and the Strata Committee may invoke the provisions under section B of this by-law.
      Liability

      The owner will be liable for any damage caused to any part of the common property as a result of the installation of the Flooring Works and will make good that damage immediately after it has occurred.

      Indemnity

      the owner must indemnify the Owners Corporation against any loss or damage the Owners Corporation suffers on the common property as a result of installing, maintaining or removing the Flooring Works including liability under 65(6) in respect of any property of the owner;

      Right to Remedy Default
      i) if the owner fails to comply with any obligation under this By-Law, THEN the Owners Corporation may, in accordance with Part 6 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015:
      ii) carry out all work necessary to perform that obligation;

      iii) enter upon any part of the parcel to carry out that work; and

      iv) recover the costs of carrying out that work from the defaulting owner pursuant to the Recovery of Costs Special By-Law.

    Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #66209
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        If your committee is waiving the requirements of item (iii) then it is effectively rewriting and undermining your by-law.  Therefore permission given through that avenue may not be valid.

        Your owners corp should insist at a general meeting that the floors permitted under the waiver be checked.  You should then have a serious discussion about the committee’s operation and whether that by-law is fit for purpose or need to be rewritten.

        The owners given the waiver should be told that the flooring installation may be in breach of the by-law and therefore subject to challenge if there is ever any noise problem.

        Committee members tend to be indemnified against making mistakes as long as they are acting ingood faith.  If the owner did want to pursue them for compensation, they’d have to prove that they knew the effect of the by-laws but decided to ignore it.  Even then, it could easily revert back to the owners corp, but that’s assuming the owner had a case at all.  And it would have to go through a local court, rather than NCAT, which has no provision that I know of for claiming damages for bad decisions, especially those made to benefit the owner making the claim.

        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 1 year, 10 months ago by .
        #66324
        Arthur
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          Hi Jimmy

          Thanks very much for your response. which all makes sense.

          One clarification. In your sentance ‘If the owner did want to pursue them for compensation, they’d have to prove that they knew the effect of the by-laws but decided to ignore it.’, Is ‘they’ the committee members or the owner who would have to prove…? Our committee members certainly understand what they are doing when they override the bylaw and there are plenety of emails to prove it.

          Some of our committee members see bylaws as a guide on how things ought to do be done but which can be ignored for expediency or self interest.

          #66326
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            In your sentence ‘If the owner did want to pursue them for compensation, they’d have to prove that they knew the effect of the by-laws but decided to ignore it.’, Is ‘they’ the committee members or the owner who would have to prove…?

            The apartment owner would have to prove that the committee members knew they (the SC) were doing the wrong thing. To do that, the owner would have to show that the committee members had read the by-law, were aware of its conditions and had chosen to ignore them.  The apartment owner might (and I stress “might”) then argue that the committee members had not acted in good faith and were therefore no longer protected by the immunity provided by S260 of the Act (below).

            I am not a lawyer but I would say that pursuing a claim against the individual members would be harder than taking a Section 232 action against the owners corporation (as represented by the committee) for failure to fulfil their duties.  The owners as a whole might, hypothetically, then take action against the committee members for not acting in good faith.

            There is still considerable liability resting with the owner who installed the floor and that might be the easiest recourse. That owner might then sue the committee on the grounds that they were misled.  Either way, it could ger very messy, very quickly. I would speak to a lawyer before doing anything.

             

            260 Personal liability
            (1) A matter or thing done or omitted to be done by any of the following persons, or a person acting under the direction of any of those persons, does not, if the matter or thing was done or omitted to be done in good faith for the purpose of executing functions as such a person under this or any other Act, subject any of the following persons or person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand:
            (a) an officer of an owners corporation,
            (b) a member of a strata committee.
            (2) Any such liability of an officer of an owners corporation or a member of a strata committee attaches instead to the owners corporation.

            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 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.