- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
I need help. Our block (12 units) has a shared storage area and all residents using the storage are asked to be considerate, not take too much space, label the goods to identify to which unit the goods belong and keep it neat and tidy. Nobody will be surprised that all of the above are disregarded.
Our Strata Manager says we cannot mark out specific areas and allocate to individual lots. I fail to understand why not.
Currently access is almost blocked by furniture (unlabelled) and when we finally got passed that we found both petrol and car engine oil. Further one resident admits a huge pile of “junk” is being stored for their friend (not even a resident).
Can we pass a set of by-laws to control this area and the volume and type of goods which can be stored? My suggestions would be 2 square metres per lot, no hazardous materials, no empty boxes, no whitegoods, no car parts (including tyres).
-
Replies
-
Beth – no replies as yet so I’ll jump in.
YES your Owners Corporation can implement the controls that you have referred to by way of a Special Resolution at a General Meeting, where >75% of those in attendance both personally and by proxy would need to vote in favour in order for a Motion to “licence” specific areas of the Common Property (storage area) to each Owner to pass, together with whatever Conditions are deemed necessary.
Clearly, the Motion would need to include and if passed be referenced to a Plan of the storage area showing the dimensions and position of each area to be licensed to individual Owners (lots), but that shouldn’t be too difficult.
Whilst it’s the Owner/s who would hold the licence/s, any tenants of their Lots could also benefit.
A Special By-Law would not be necessary, as Sect 65B of the Strata Schemes Management Act already applies (https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/s65b.html).
No problem, but perhaps make sure that the licences have either a review date, perhaps annually so that serial non-compilers can have those rescinded, OR a sunset provision so the Owners Corporation can decide whether or not to continue with the licence system.
It’s best to avoid anything that it could be later argued is perpetual or subject to existing (long term) use privileges.
We did it in a slightly different way. I’m in Victoria but it might work in NSW too. In Victoria, the committee alone can make a decision to improve/alter common property (within limits).
We have 12 lots and an area of common property the committee thought to use for storage. Two years ago, at OC expense, the committee installed, in that common area, 12 equal sized lockers/cages. We put a number 1 to 12 on each. We told each owner they were allowed to use a locker/cage that had their lot number on it but that the area and the lockers themselves remained common property. We saw this as a fair an equal use of common property for each lot and that the OC would stay in control of it all.
So far it has worked.
Austman said – I’m in Victoria but it might work in NSW too. In Victoria, the committee alone can make a decision to improve/alter common property (within limits).
Just to clarify for Beth…… NO it doesn’t work that way in NSW unless the Owners Corporation (O/C) has already put a Registered Special By-Law (SBL) in place that permits specific types improvements or alterations to be made to its Common Property, where if Owners then seek a formal consent for improvements or alterations of that type, its Executive Committee can grant that on behalf of the O/C in strict accordance with the provisions of that SBL.
@Whale said:
Austman said – I’m in Victoria but it might work in NSW too. In Victoria, the committee alone can make a decision to improve/alter common property (within limits).
Just to clarify for Beth…… NO it doesn’t work that way in NSW unless the Owners Corporation (O/C) has already put a Registered Special By-Law (SBL) in place that permits specific types improvements or alterations to be made to its Common Property, where if Owners then seek a formal consent for improvements or alterations of that type, its Executive Committee can grant that on behalf of the O/C in strict accordance with the provisions of that SBL.
Perhaps if I can clarify? There was no physical alteration of, addition to or new structure erected on the common property. Just the purchase of some lockers/cages that were free-standing and placed in one area on common property – much like a pieces of furniture. Can an EC do that in NSW?
Austman – that’s not what I inferred from your other post (#5), but in those circumstances, provided there was sufficient funds in a line item of the relevant budget as approved, YES.
Beth, really sorry to hear about the predicament your block is facing. Sometimes it’s just a matter of having people be considerate and aware of how they are affecting others around them and I can totally understand why you’re so frustrated! I mean, how difficult could it be to properly arrange your items within some moving boxes and have them stacked neatly and out of everybody’s way. There should be a higher governance of it, so hope the building management was able to work something out for you!
I totally understand your dilemma and empathise with your situation that you are facing at your block. Some people simply do not have the basic courtesy to follow simple rules and regulations. That is why my family and I have decided that placing our things at self storage Sydney is a better choice where our belongings will be guaranteed their safety. We experienced the same situation before and we learnt from it.
Just to put this into some sort of perspective, several years ago the Executive Committee of my building decided to provide storage in some of our unused nooks and crannies for the hire of individual owners. A company installed chain link cages and they were rented out on a pro rata basis, calculated on the space inside, at considerably less than commercial rates.
There probably should have been by-laws and all the rest of it but the general opinion was that everyone benefited one way or the other, either by having secure storage or by the admin fund getting rent from the storage.
The only fly in the ointment came later when a new autocratic chair decided to up the rates and had a informal vote where people who had cages were excluded from voting but people on the waiting list weren’t. Bizarre!
Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that the StrataKops didn’t come screaming round in their ByLawMobile to tell us we had to take it down. If anyone objected to this, they certainly weren’t annoyed enough to test it at the CTTT. Common sense prevails … until it doesn’t. And that’s when you deal with it otherwise good ideas die like dogs in a ditch.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.