- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I live in a small complex of 21 units. A block of four units at the rear of the comlex make up a section (two up and two down). A common property tap was placed by the developer near the patio area to Unit 18. You use common property path to the patio but have to pop around the corner to get to the tap. I requested to the EC this be repositioned so Units 18, 19, 20 and 21 can obtain access and water the common property garden near their units. This request was denied. I then attempted to access the tap however was told I was 'tresspassing' by Unit 18 as I had to go around the edge of the patio to get to the tap. I proceeded to cut back the bushes (pittosporum) in the common property garden however Unit 18 said this was her 'privacy' and did not want them cut back. My plan was to then lay stepping stones (as Unit 18 has done) so access was made easier. I said to her if she had encouraged the EC to reposition the tap that there would be no problems as it could still be positioned to allow her to water the side common property garden and I could water the common property garden on the side of 19 and 21. She said I can use the tap in the driveway but that is a fair distance away and it seems very unfair as she essentially has sole and personal use of the common property tap. What is the correct ruling here please?
-
Replies
-
We are in a small block. Only one of the owners does not have a car space on title, and we are in an area where parking is at a premium. She is proposing to widen the driveway and expand across the front garden – which is not in great condition. This will be a fairly major job for which she has undertaken to pay. At the moment she is opting for a bylaw that grants her exclusive use of that land and responsibility for upkeep, with or without a time limit. She does not think that she needs to pay any money to the other owners for the land or use of land for the driveway, as she argues that we don't really use that land anyway (although we have begun improving the front garden recently).
Do you think that the bylaw is a good way of going about this kind of change and exclusive access?
Or would we better going down the path of her buying the land according to the Houghton formula and putting it on her title?
Or are there other imaginative options that are available?
Also, how would this affect her strata rates? At the moment she pays less because she does not have a driveway on title.
The simplest solution is to permanently lease the land to her at a rate that recognises the increased value to her apartment from having a parking space as well as an estimate of what the increased levies for her lot would be if they were re-calculated.
The contract would be drawn up in such away as it was permanent and attached to the title of the unit with the amount of the lease rising according to either CPI or the percentage increase in levies for the whole building.
Then reduce the amount payable over the first few months or years to reflect the cost of the work done at the owner's expense.
That way you can set conditions for the use of the parking space that mean any problems that might arise in the future (such as trucks parking there or that sudden appearance of a car port) can be easily dealt with because it is still, essentially, common property. And you don't have to go through the hassle of re-setting the unit entitlements.
I'm sure there are other ways of handling this effectively but, on principle, you shouldn't be giving any common property away just because no one is using it.
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.
thanks! great advice and love your column
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.