- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Most are unaware of this but Victoria has a new Sex Workers Act of 2022. It completely decriminalizes sex work and puts it on the same basis as any other business. No planning permit is required.
The prior Act of 1994 was partially repealed in May and will be fully repealed in December 2023. After that date prostitutes can work from home.
That is FROM WITHIN YOUR OWNERS CORPORATION.
Now that has potential impact on the amenities of a building that I won’t comment further upon.
My question is whether an OC can effectively stop prostitutes WFH within an OC.
The model rules prevents change of use of a lot if that change would increase insurance costs. Possibly it would in terms of malicious damage. Possibly an OC could get an insurer to say it would.
Equally an OC could raise Special Resolutions to pass Special Rules about working from home either generically or specifically. e.g.
Those WFH must not allow external clients to visit and enter the building
Prostitutes may not provide services from their lotWithin the OC Act we certainly can have Special Rules. But we could be prevented by other legislation such as Victoria’s Human Rights legislation. Special Rules might be discouraging but utterly ineffective.
For those with an Age subscription you can read their report here. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/sick-of-being-stigmatised-sex-workers-and-councils-prepare-for-shake-up-20230429-p5d485.html
The prostitute interviewed has two mortgages and seems to expect her neighbours to provide security for her.
Has anybody else been looking at / considering this?
- This topic was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by .
-
Replies
-
Security cameras (real or fake) and a prominent notice warning “you may be filmed” at most-used access points would provide deterrence. The problem isn’t the sex-workers, it’s their clients.
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.
If this occurs in your OC make sure you advise your insurance company, in writing. Then if there is an increase in premiums the owner is liable for them. Even if there is no additional cost, the insurance company does require that they be informed if there may be increased risk to the premises they’re providing coverage.
Do this in writing immediately, and make sure your OC manager knows that this is very serious and must be actioned immediately.
Maybe the legal person who is au fait with Victorian OC law could advise if the cost of any additional security that is required could be paid for by the owner?
Thanks for raising this. I was unware of this change, it is yet another example of the government policy makers being strata blind. I will ask SCA (Vic) to raise with the relevant minister.
But in the meantime, what can be done?
We already know in Victoria that an owners corporation can’t interfere in a persons property rights eg short term letting (Supreme Court of Victoria case of Owners Corporation PS 501391P v Balcombe [2016] VSC 384 (22 July 2016). If it is lawful use under planning laws or other laws, then an owners corporation can’t create Rules to prevent. However what we learnt in Lim v Owners Corporation PS714612M (Owners Corporations) [2018] VCAT 1995 was that the Rules are for the administration of the common property and requiring induction, provided it was requirement of all owners, residents and their guests was considered reasonable.
Using this as an example, perhaps there are some administrative process that require all residents and their guests to register or sign in, to ensure that the owners corporation has knowledge of the number occupants in the building at anytime to able to comply with occupancy permit and emergency processes, similar to what we did under Covid.
Perhaps cameras, particularly facial recognition at point of entry and linked to swipe, fob or key access to promote a safe and secure building for all.
A regular security access review of all key, swipes and fobs to ensure that all are registered and in use, weekly or daily changing of access codes – often necessary if the building has high takeaway food deliveries, may see the need to remove all “unregistered” or not dormant devices.
Of course all these administrative services will need to incur a fee, similar to our Lim case – everyone to contribute to at least one fee for the service and then a user pays.
Can anyone think of any other ingress and egress services?
Of course, you should absolutely consult your favourite legal adviser to craft Rules that are not oppressive or discriminatory and comply with the law. Once you have the drafted Rules, you will need a special resolution from all owners to allow the Rule to be registered before you charge any fees or enforce the Rule.
I am also reminded of a comment by the Police when advising a committee of the benefit of security patrols and CCTV. Security Patrols and/or CCTV won’t stop the crime, but it encourages the crim’s to go elsewhere without those measures.
Perhaps its the same for small business. The more difficult it is to run a business from your building the more likely they will hopefully move on.
Food for thought.
Can anyone think of any other ingress and egress services?
This reminds me of the building in Sydney’s CBD that introduced facial recognition to curb overcrowding. All well and good until one woman grabbed her husband’s keys while she went out to buy milk. The computer image trieggered by the key didn’t match the one on its camera and not only was she locked out, but the system cancelled the key too.
In any case, residents must be able to allow visitors into the block, which would bypass any other constraints and efforts to curb that would probably be breaches of the law, as mentioned above.
A big CCTV warning sign would, I think, be a pretty effective (and inexpensive) deterrent for the clients and courtesans alike.
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, 4 months ago by .
people learn to wear caps and look down to make it hard to get facial. It is something of a weak reed.
Good point but, the immigration security gates at the airport make me take my hat and glasses off. If it’s such a significant problem, perhaps a system that won’t activate the bell push until it can see a face might work (if such a thing even exists in civilian life).
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.
UPDATE: There is fairly inexpensive technology available that employs facial detection (rather than facial recognition) which is to say, it recognises there is a human face in view but doesn’t necessarily recognise who it belongs to. It could be programmed to respond to that.
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.
The problem isn’t the sex-workers, it’s their clients? Really? If there weren’t these people in your property you wouldn’t have the attending clients to begin with. A girl in my former block was on the game, had a raging injection problem, had a rough cut bouncer boyfriend keeping watch, looked like a witch, and had all sort of clients coming through or waiting in the foyer at all sort of hours, often times with their mates awaiting in the car. And your property becomes known as such to all the wrong sort of people. I don’t care in the slightest if this is a legal work from home business or not and so any sense of annoying, exposing, or discouraging clients is what I’d be doing. Self-preservation of other owner’s right to peaceful enjoyment and retaining property values will take precedent over those who want to rent themselves out, every time.
The problem isn’t the sex-workers, it’s their clients? Really?
THEN
A girl in my former block … had all sort of clients coming through or waiting in the foyer at all sort of hours, often times with their mates awaiting in the car. And your property becomes known as such to all the wrong sort of people.
It sounds like you are agreeing with me (in a backhanded way). It’s true that without the sex worker there would be no clients, but without the clients there would be no sex worker. Deter the customers and the lady of the night will move on – try to deter the working girl and you face all sorts of legal rights issues.
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 might surprise some but in my SP we are zoned for that sort of thing and it is DA exempt.
2 Permitted without consent
Environmental protection works; Extensive agriculture; Forestry; Home occupations; Home occupations (sex services); Intensive plant agriculture
… in my SP we are zoned for that sort of thing and it is DA exempt… (including) Intensive plant agriculture.
Looks like you’re also OK to grow serious amounts of hydro as soon as they legalise cannabis.
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.
Ask the local council if the use is a permitted use under the provisions of the local government planning scheme. Ask to speak with a town planner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.