- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi,
Our EC recently approved privacy screens for the terraces of the ground floor apartments. It was a hard fought battle & the original architect was brought in to design the screens – as such the screens had to be metal, of a particular style, height and colour in keeping with all the extensive metal work that exists in our complex. The cost of these screens was quite expensive $4000 for the entire terrace length, but having said that they fit in beautifully and look like they should always have been there.
So those of us who were willing to pay the $4000, got the screens installed.
However, over the last two days a ground floor resident has been installing timber planter boxes to their terrace, these planter boxes come with a tall timber trellis attached. this timber trellis is at least one metre taller than the terrace wall and does not fit in with the aesthetic of the building at all, and certainly does not look anywhere near as good as the approved unobtrusive metal screens.
The problem is that most people on the ground floor have not yet got their privacy screens (saving the money) installed, however when they see this timber trellis, most of them will jump at the chance to do the same and for $600 vs $4000 why wouldn’t you? Certainly we would have liked this cheaper option, but were told by the EC & the architect that if we wanted privacy screens we would have to install the approved metal ones and so a few of us did.
The people who have installed the trellis did not ask permission, they have just done it.
I know they will argue that it isn’t permanent, but our By-laws state:
Owners & Occupiers must not:
place or hang any item on their balcony/terrace which is inconsistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the Building.
Which is why we and a few others had to pay $4000 for approved screens.
What can be done about this timber trellis? personally now that it is there I have the feeling the EC will just say it is ok. if this does happen are those of us who did the right thing and asked for permission first and were forced to jump through hoops to get an approved design and then had to pay top dollar for it, entitled to compensation from the Owners Corporation or EC, because they were emphatic about the only design that could be installed.
Thanks
-
Replies
-
@deliria1 said:
What can be done about this timber trellis? personally now that it is there I have the feeling the EC will just say it is ok. if this does happen are those of us who did the right thing and asked for permission first and were forced to jump through hoops to get an approved design and then had to pay top dollar for it, entitled to compensation from the Owners Corporation or EC, because they were emphatic about the only design that could be installed.
Who (OC, EC or SM) actually insisted that these screens need to be an approved design and how was this decided (vote at AGM??). As these are att to common property they should have registered a generic SBL authorizeing these additions.
If the OC (EC I doubt has the authority, and SM def dosn’t) insisted that you have these screens and then did not enforce the bylaw you might have a case if they don’t apply the bylaw uniformly against everyone.
@kiwipaul said:If the OC (EC I doubt has the authority, and SM def dosn’t) insisted that you have these screens and then did not enforce the bylaw you might have a case if they don’t apply the bylaw uniformly against everyone.
I think this is a lot simpler than it seems. The by-law says that the trellis has to be of an approved design and previous practice has established what that design is.
A letter to your strata manager asking them to inform the ground floor owners that their trellis is non-compliant and should be removed immediately should do the trick.
Failing that and given the worst case scenario assumption that the EC does nothing, there is nothing to stop Deliria and other owners taking the issue to Fair Trading and NCAT (formerly the CTTT) to seek an order enforcing a by-law.
As far as seeking compensation for failure to fairly enforce by-laws, it is impossible to get a costs award from NCAT (at the moment) so your only recourse s to force the EC to fulfill its duties, rather than seeking compensation for failure to do so.
But I honestly think assuming the worst is not the way to go. A polite but forceful letter, preferably signed by other owners who paid for the Rolls Royce trellis, will fix this.
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.
@deliria1 said:
Owners & Occupiers must not:
place or hang any item on their balcony/terrace which is inconsistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the Building.
This looks like a generic bylaw to me not the specific bylaw that would be required to tie down the exact requirements that Deliria1 specified. Most of this is a matter of taste and could cover all sorts of installations their should have been an SBL registered tieing down the exact specifications of the designer for any installed screens.
Evan so a simple majourity of the EC or OC could vote that the trellis is inappropiate and get it removed with a simple majourity vote.
I strongly suspect here as well no SBL was registered.
@deliria1 said:
I spoke to the Strata Manager and while I am not sure if an SBL was registered pertaining to these screens – the minutes of the AGM indicate that the metal screen installed by some residents set the precedent & all requests for privacy screens must follow this design.If a bylaw that requires these special screens was NOT registered you have a uphill battle.
Because any sort of screen can be either approved or rejected by a simple majourity of the EC or OC according to wheter they think it complies with the byalw that you quoted (and this bylaw is non specific and so could mean anything).
Also any screen att to the common property should have an associated bylaw but this rule seems to be ignored in 90% of the cases because it can cost $1000.
delirial – I disagree with some of the other posts, in that your Plan’s existing By-Law states that nothing may be placed or hung on balconies that’s inconsistent etc etc, and the resolution of the Owners Corporation merely prescribes what is consistent with regard (only) to the design and appearance of privacy screens.
Given the plethora of “things” that could conceivably be “placed or hung”, that’s an entirely logical approach in my opinion, and what you need to do in order to resolve the issue of others placing other types / designs of privacy screens on their balconies is to remind your Executive Committee (E/C) of their obligations, and request the Secretary and/or Strata Manager to advise those Owners in writing of what the O/C has resolved is consistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the building, and instruct them to immediately remove whatever is not.
If as you suspect your E/C is unprepared to do that, then Jimmy’s post #3 sets out what then needs to be done.
Don’t stress… that’s often the outcome when people who do the wrong thing are found out, and have to “un-do”.
To avoid similar incidents, perhaps ask your E/C Secretary and Strata Manager about placing a Motion on the Agenda of the next General Meeting to, and for the princely sum of $104.50, amend the existing By-Law to the extent that privacy screens of a design available from the Owners Corporation are permitted.
If the occupier with the timber trellis had written in claiming it was more aesthetically pleasing we could have advised them to check whether a special resolution was passed approving the metal screens, and even if it was there may be a case for arguing it’s invalidity in that the by law doesn’t use abstract terminology such as “in keeping” but “place or hang any item on their balcony/terrace which is inconsistent with the aesthetics and appearance of the Building” which could be seen to indicate that either all of those with or all without the metal screen are in breach i.e. they have been deemed consistent with the aesthetics but clearly are not consistent with the appearance of all balconies. Could something be inconsistent with the aesthetics but consistent with the appearance?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.