Flat Chat Strata Forum Parking Peeves Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8769

    I’m an owner/occupier in a strata complex which is made up of units and townhouses.  The townhouses have their own lock up garages within the common carpark.  Some units have allocated carparks (the parking in the visitor and car wash bay is a whole other thread Wink )

    A few of the cars in car spaces (unit dwellers) have, over the years been broken into or damaged.  Usually when the fire door onto the street has been left open by those who use it because it must be easier.

    The townhouses are only accessed by their individual garages, so the use of the comma basement is essentially to get into your garage.  There is no need to use any other areas of the common property to access your townhouse.

    The latest unit dweller to have their car broken into, twice in 2 weeks, wants cctv installed.  Fair enough, we had issues with a resident seriously damaging cars (another story) but he’s gone.

    The townhouses, due to square meterage, pay the most in strata levies.  In this situation, townhouse owners would be stumping up the most $$$ to protect the vehicles of the cars of the unit dwellers, despite our vehicles being safely locked behind individual doors.

    I ask as we are currently paying hefty levies due to a building defect claim.  Townhouses are currently paying $2300/ quarter (for the past couple of years).  Units are paying between $600 and $800/ quarter.

    Is it possible for a special levy to be weighted so the unit dwellers pay more for the installation of cctv?

    cheersKiss

Viewing 12 replies - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #18160
    Whale
    Flatchatter

      The funds that an Owners Corporation (O/C) resolves to collect by way of a Special Levy needs to be paid into its Administrative Fund, and as inequitable as it sounds in the circumstances you describe, the Act (NSW) requires that the amount of Proprietors’ contributions be calculated in proportion to the unit entitlements of their respective Lots.

      BUT… whilst I’m not aware of it being done I don’t know of any impediment, apart from obtaining agreement from a majority of Proprietors at a General Meeting, to a Special Levy being raised by contributions from a sub-set of those Proprietors in proportion to the unit entitlements of only their Lots. Others may wish to comment on that approach.

      On the subject of CCTV, our Plan installed a 4 camera system to provide surveillance of the Common Property, and of the carpark in particular around six (6) years ago, and whilst that’s been effective in detecting people dumping rubbish in the garbage area and vehicles parking inappropriately, apart from its deterrent value to people contemplating “bad-things”, those have been about the only benefits.

      If someone is acting inappropriately such as by breaking into residents’ vehicles or by leaving the fire door open as you describe, then what does your O/C expect to gain from the collection of CCTV vision to prove it? On the basis of first-hand experience I can confidently advise, not much!

      Vehicle owners will become aware of break-ins when they see the consequences, and all the CCTV will do is provide details of the precise time of the offence and, if you’re lucky, how the person/s gained access to the area. Even if a camera is close enough and the vision clear enough to identify a perpetrator, that’s of no use unless someone recognises them, and the Police aren’t interested as regrettably, vehicle break-ins are all too common-place.

      Seriously, your O/C would be better served by fitting some active security features like pneumatic closers on the fire doors and movement-activated flood-lights and strategically located flashing red and blue strobes (inside the carpark); you’d be surprised how off-putting the latter is!

      If your O/C is unconvinced, then suggest dummy CCTV cameras as an interim step; good ones are just as effective as the real thing as a deterrent, and considerably cheaper.  

      #18162
      kiwipaul
      Flatchatter

        I don’t believe it would be legal to only levy fees on certain lots, unless all the lot owners affected (unit holders) agreed to it. Then once it’s installed who is going to maintain it / monitor it (as I doubt the townhouse owners will want to contribute as it’s no benefit to them).

        Raising a special levy requires just a simple majority at a General Meeting but using this levy for an improvement requires a SR (75% in favor).

        Got to agree with Whale improving security and dummy cameras seem the best bet.

        #18163
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster

          There are a couple of issues here and while I think there are mechanisms for splitting the payment – the affected owners could club together to buy the equipment and the OC as a whole could agree to install and maintain it – but I think any such move undercuts the whole principle of strata as a community.

          I can understand people not wanting to pay for things that don’t seem to benefit them in any way but where do you draw the line? If the roof leaks, should only the people on the top floor pay for repairs.  If there’s a flood, should it only be those on the ground that have to pay? Or maybe the people on the upper floors (but not the top) should have their contribution to the insurance premiums reduced accordingly.

          I assume the increased levies affected the other owners too so this shouldn’t be about how much everyone is paying. Opportunists thieves will very quickly work out where the CCTV cameras are and find a workaround – hoodies are a favourite with the young folk.  They may decide to move on to the next easiest place to rob cars undetected.  Hey, inside a garage would be great!

          Surveys have shown that security is one of the top three reasons people buy into or rent in strata. Spend  a little money wisely and you increase the value of your homes.

          Whale is right on the money with his suggestions of improving the security of the whole building  and any “not our problem” attitude is going to come back and bite you because it will become your problem as soon as thieves realise it’s easier to break into your property than your neighbours’ cars.

          If it were my complex, I’d be pushing for a by-law to prevent people from exiting and entering the building via security doors.  And I would buy and install one camera to catch the culprits who do so.  A “processing fee” on top of the CTTT fines would mean your security would not only be massively improved, the cameras would pay for themselves.

          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.
          #18165

          Thanks for the responses Smile

          Whale’s response gave me plenty of food for thought. I’ll suggest the hingey thing on the door and perhaps we can get those swipey cards retro fitted to for all doors in the basement.  And perhaps a mix of actual and dummy cameras is the answer.

          We townhousers actually upped our security as individuals and have paid for our own bolts as thieves had reefed open our doors and taken odd things (like my bag of goodies for charity or a rope from a neighbour’s garage. Ignoring the dvd and tv in my garage and the wine in my neighbour’s).  Go figure right!

          The reason cctv has arisen again, is that each time there’s an issues, police say if there were footage for them to view it would assist them.

          Here’s the kicker – we did have a covert camera for our malicious damager.  The police viewed the footage and stills. He didn’t cover up. We knew it was him.  We knew which unit he lived in and pointed the police there AND his workplace.  The police couldn’t get him as he scarped (sadly a few residents taped the pix to his unit door with things like “sprung” written on them).  This bloke has a serious record for offending as well.  Anyhow he is no longer part of our community, and we are a community, despite my moaning about $$ Wink

           

          Thank you all again for your wise words.

          #18166

          Whale the flashing strobe lights – is that to emulate police?  Our basement lights are permanently on.

          cheers

          #18169
          Whale
          Flatchatter

            Yes .. and totally legal provided those red/blue lights aren’t visible from outside the building.

            With regard to the carpark lights, we found that permanent lighting throughout the carpark was less effective than retaining only those near the vehicle / pedestrian entry and exit points, and retrofitting motion activated floodlights elsewhere – strategically pointed at both ends of carpark rows; seems to have a “roo in the headlights” effect! 

            Back to the CCTV briefly … I’d ask the local Police precisely how the vision could assist them (particularly if as Jimmy T suggested the “hoodies” would be up”), what quality of vision they require, and whether they require continuous recording or if they’ll accept motion-detected recording. Our locals required a minimum 10 frames / second continuous at a resolution of 640 x 480, they recommended at least 28 days storage on the DVR, and still we’ve never been asked to supply them with anything – because as I said before there’s rarely been anything worthwhile to see. A great deterrent though.

            #18180

            Thank you Whale, you’ve given great advice. Do you consultLaughon site. 

            Cheers

            #18185
            justsaying
            Flatchatter

              I agree that some  improvement on the fire door would help. I do have some suggestions regarding the security cameras though. As someone who has had severe damage to cars whilst parked in the car space, the police were very interested, coming several times and advised that if the OC installed good quality CCTV with the ability to backup for viewing then the chances of catching the perpetrator was much higher. For me, a person was seen beside my cars but unless I could prove it by vision it was my word against his/her.

              It was also a resident who was acting suspiciously not a intruder. We have installed two CCTV cameras over the entrance that only has the ability to view 90 degrees. The other is in the Gym… not sure why this was necessary. Today I tried to enter the garbage room and was overwhelmed by the rubbish /furniture left.. now CCTV would be very helpful there.

              Our very wise men took the decision to remove the lights and replace them with a movement sensor style. The entire car park is now in darkness unless one walks directly near the sensors. So I’m not convinced about the lighting suggestion.

              I agree that increased security does improve property values. After all, searches on property can easily determine the history of a scheme.

               On a positive note, because residents took careful notice of one such person he was eventually charged with breaking and entering.

              #18186
              Jimmy-T
              Keymaster

                Local police from the crime prevention unit (or whatever it is called) will often come and give your building a free security audit, if requested.  Placing  movement sensors where the lights are (rather that where people enter) is the kind of basic error well-intentioned amateurs will make.  And local cops are also more aware of the kinds of crime being perpetrated in your area as well as the modus operandi of the crims involved.

                It’s a free service and if you listen to their advice it will add value to your properties.  It’s a no-brainer, really.

                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.
                #18201

                Thanks Jimmy & justsaying(no relation). I’ve asked our strata manager to obtain quoted for Pneumatic door closers.  I think the ones there are bridge. And the door directly out to the street definitely needs something done. I’ve also requested access swipe cards to deter the  people who choose to use paper to keep the door open. 

                The police audit is a great idea as well.

                Justsaying – the gym CCTV may be for evidence if someone claims personal injury, as well as protecting those assets. Just don’t wear daggy gym gear ;-p

                PS our surreptitious video: our malicious resident was caught definitively engaged in the act of slashing tyres. We planted a bait car as he’d vandalised 6 cars 6 nights consecutive nights, escalating his usual behaviour of 6 years…mate of the developer who until 3 yrs ago held a number of units thus stymieing any action. OC paid for the replacement of 4 tyres. 

                Cheers

                #18202
                justsaying
                Flatchatter

                  I agree with you Jimmy about the police coming into a building and offering advice. It is a no-brainer!  That’s just what they did in my area! Wonderful advice! There is also a security firm in Sydney that will also do this free of charge. Did the wise men take that advice…. No way! We are stuck with a dark car park,  lights with sensors with narrow angles…

                  Was it approved at a GM… course not… 

                  As they say: another day in paradise

                  Wink

                  #18224

                  Thanks again everyone.  I’ll update you on the security audit etc Cool

                  Cheers!

                Viewing 12 replies - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                Flat Chat Strata Forum Parking Peeves Current Page