› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page
- This topic has 9 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 days ago by .
-
CreatorTopic
-
21/06/2023 at 10:45 pm #69092
In Victoria
Owners have received an email from the Body Corporate Manager. The steel roof of the laundry drying area has deteriorated. The drying area is a locked open-air area, with steel walls and at the top “floor” of the building. It will cost about $33,000 to fix the roof (floor of the drying area) and then another $10,000 to re-instate the new drying area.
q1. Are we entitled to see the O&HS report regarding this?
It has been suggested that if the drying area is not being used then it shouldn’t be replaced. We have been asked to reply to the Body Corp Manager if tenants are in fact using the drying area.
q2. Is this a case of “majority rules” and something to be voted on?
q3. Before deciding to remove the dedicated drying area – should there be some indication of what it is to happen to the area?
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
22/06/2023 at 8:58 am #69094
While I am unfamiliar with Victorian strata law, I am sure it would contain provisions for the class of resolution required for an owners corporation to change the use of an area of common property. It could be reasonable to informally poll owners to find out whether most owners value the provision of outdoor clothes drying and would like that reinstated after doing roof repairs or not. That could then inform what motion is put to a general meeting. The owners corporation certainly has to get on with fixing the roof. Whether the drying facilities are then reinstated or the area is put to some other purpose or nothing further is done is then a matter for the owners to decide.
23/06/2023 at 12:51 pm #69126My concern is there is no O&HS report although we are told it is an OH&S issue. Also what sort of “majority” is needed to pass a resolution to remove the drying area?
23/06/2023 at 1:16 pm #69128Setting aside concerns for soaring energy costs and global warming, sadly typical of Victorian strata law, this is not as simple as it should be. You will need a special resolution to change common property which requires a vote in favour of 75% of all owners (not just those voting at the meeting) or 75% of unit entitlements (ditto), if a poll vote is taken.
However, if the vote at the meeting is more than 50% of all owners in the block in favour, and fewer than 25% vote against, it is considered an interim special resolution, in which case owners must be informed withing 14 days and then objectors have 29 days to raise a 25% vote against, otherwise it becomes a special resolution.
No wonder Victorian strata is such a mess. How does anything significant ever get decided?
In this specific case, the following may be significant:
An owners corporation must not make a significant alteration to the use or appearance of the common property unless … there are reasonable grounds to believe that an immediate alteration is necessary to ensure safety or to prevent significant loss or damage.
Otherwise, here (below) are the requirements for changing common property under non-emergency circumstances.
OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 – SECT 52
Significant alteration to common property requires special resolution
An owners corporation must not make a significant alteration to the use or appearance of the common property unless—
(a) the alteration is
S. 52(a)(i) amended by No. 2/2008 s. 12(2).
(i) first approved by a special resolution of the owners corporation; or
(ii) permitted by the maintenance plan; or
(iii) agreed to under section 53; or
(b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that an immediate alteration is necessary to ensure safety or to prevent significant loss or damage.
OWNERS CORPORATIONS ACT 2006 – SECT 53
Upgrading of common property
(1) An owners corporation may by special resolution approve the carrying out of upgrading works for the common property and the levying of fees on lot owners for that purpose.
S. 53(1A) inserted by No. 78/2013 s. 7.
(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), the fees must be based on lot liability.
S. 53(1B) inserted by No. 78/2013 s. 7.
(1B) Fees for upgrading works carried out wholly or substantially for the benefit of some or one, but not all, of the lots affected by the owners corporation must be levied on the basis that the lot owner of the lot that benefits more pays more.
(2) In this section “upgrading works” means building works for the upgrading, renovation or improvement of the common property where—
(a) the total cost of the works is estimated to be more than twice the total amount of the current annual fees; or
(b) the works require a planning permit or a building permit before they can be carried out—
but does not include works that are provided for in an approved maintenance plan or works referred to in section 4(b).
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.
24/06/2023 at 12:04 pm #69132In Victoria. I’m not sure what your problem with Victoria is but going by the act you have quoted it’s straightforward and achievable.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by .
24/06/2023 at 12:14 pm #69136I’m not sure what your problem with Victoria is …
Lack of transparency (owners have no right to attend strata committee meetings), complete breakdown of underfunded CAV and clogging of VCAT with a two-year waiting list for hearings. Meanwhile rogue strata committees neglect their responsibilities and openly flout the law with no redress (such as one refusing to hold an AGM on the grounds that they were likely to be voted off, and CAV, VCAT and ministers not even responding to complaints). And then you have the flammable cladding shambles. And the Aurora scandal.
Everywhere has problems in strata but at least other states have avenues for resolving them. Victoria has a hidden crisis because politicians and the mainstream media just don’t want to know. It’s just like NSW – only 20 years ago.
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.
24/06/2023 at 12:22 pm #69139If you do get rid of a designated drying area, I think you will find it much harder to enforce any policy the building might have about drying washing on balconies (not that I have any problem with people drying clothes on balconies). As people try to be more energy efficient and reduce costs, you might find demand for open air drying goes up, not down.
I would be reluctant to lose an air-drying facility unless there was a replacement somewhere else. You mention the cost is $10,000 to reinstate the drying area. How many are in the building? If there are 100 units, that is only $100 each to retain what I expect is a useful facility.
On the other hand, roof space is a valuable asset these days. Perhaps owners would prefer to make it a recreational area with pizza oven, BBQ and seating or it could be covered in solar PV or it could accommodate solar hot water to pre-heat water to reduce costs for gas or electricity or it could have raised beds for a community veggie garden.
24/06/2023 at 12:33 pm #69142… going by the act you have quoted it’s straightforward and achievable.
Achievable, for sure, but straightforward? I don’t know how many people usually turn up at general meetings in Victoria – or hand in proxies or postal votes – but 75 per cent of all owners or unit entitlements is a massive threshold.
Even 50% of all owners (not just those present or voting at the meeting) is hard to achieve. Then there’s the whole 29 days “cooling off” period while you wait to see if the opposition can garner 25% of the votes against.
Compare that to NSW where it takes 75 % of votes in favour by the unit entitlements of lots represented at the meeting. If it passes, it passes; if it fails, it fails. Now that is straightforward. It’s not perfect but it’s easy to understand.
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.
24/06/2023 at 12:37 pm #69143As people try to be more energy efficient and reduce costs, you might find demand for open air drying goes up, not down.
I would wait until the increases in energy costs kick in, then take a poll among all residents – owners and renters – and see how they feel about losing a free laundry drying facility.
By the way, according to strata lawyer David Bannerman in last week’s podcast, bans on laundry on balconies are gradually being phased out in many strata schemes.
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, 3 months ago by .
10/10/2024 at 11:41 am #76444So much water under the bridge since this post.
Even though all AGMs and Levy Notices referred to the Vic Strata Act 2006 – it was not relevant as we are a Company Title.
In the meantime there was an insurance claim – that was never mentioned at any AGM. It involved an owner’s own washing machine causing damage to their own flat but covered by Strata insurance as the owners “did not have contents insurance”.
That is another story!
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page