Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Another interesting VIC problem which appeared on residents forum “We Live Here” a few months ago. They reported that 10 of the City buildings with curtain glass cladding have flammable cladding behind the glass.
They claim that one building has had 26 insurance companies refuse cover and that an astonishing (maybe a bit unbelievable) 50,000 square metres of flammable cladding exist and replacement cost could be $150 million.
Haven’t heard anything more on this. I guess that the only way to find out would be to get a Section 32 for all likely buildings.
Other reasons in most residential buildings ( Class 2 ) Rather than short-term accommodation ( Class 3) are that the building has lower safety requirements than Class 3.
In Class 2 the Building Code of Australia allows independent smoke detectors and smoke doors to apartments. For a Class 3 building smoke detectors have to be hard wired into the building system (burning your toast could be a $3000+ charge from the fire brigade) and apartments have to have fire rated doors.
Obviously (to me at least) short term rentals are non compliant with the BCA and owners should, if they allow short term rentals, have to comply with Class 3 standards.
Like you Jimmy, we choose to live in the CBD for the convenience of being close to everything. Noisy parties are a long way back in my life-span! Our building has many owner occupiers and tenants are mainly head down bum up hard working Asian students who cause very few problems.
Decipher,
Am I foolish in believing that the whole point of an Owners Corporation is to run the building according to the wishes of the majority of members.
Are you suggesting that I could set up a sawmill in my apartment and ignore the wishes of everyone else in the building??
If owners are going to be supported by VCAT in breaking rules made by the OC, then what is the point of the existence of rules? Before anyone buys an apartment, they get a copy of the rules, if they don’t like the rules then they should buy somewhere else! Simple!
The Age is reporting today that VCAT has ruled that airbnb is not assigning or subletting, and that tenants cannot be evicted for using airbnb.
There is a suggestion to use other (unnamed) clauses in the residential tenancy act.
Looks like another “wise” VCAT decision!
Our building in Melbourne added a minimum 3 month rental rule five or six years ago. It mostly worked for a while, but currently VCAT seem to be saying that OCs cannot stop an owner doing whatever he wants.
In the case of tenants going airbnb then it is a bit easier. Most leases say no sub-letting and agents can terminate leases of tenants sub-letting.
I would love to enforce the rule, but at the moment it seems impossible.
I wonder if the building has had problems with short term tenants and has decided that this is a good way to ensure that only genuine owners and tenants with valid leases have access.
Could be a good way to keep the likes of Airbnb out!
With owners who consistently ignore minimum rental terms as they bank the profits from short term rentals would this system be legal?
1) Send a letter to all owners telling them that the minimum rental of ?months is to be strictly enforced following a 30 day period to enable them to cancel forward bookings
2) Advise owners that access fobs will be cancelled for all users with the exception of the owner or tenants with a lease for over the minimum period.
I couldn’t access the Victorian Forum tonight as it is being updated, but this topic covers us all.
In our case, all the owners could do would be to take us to VCAT and complain that we are not allowing them to break the rules!
A company that I worked with some time ago had a simple solution to anyone that illegally used our well marked private car park. An A4 sheet of adhesive label stock with a polite notice telling them that they were parked illegally would be placed in the centre of the drivers side of the windscreen.
It was quite interesting watching them scraping it off before they could leave. Never came back though!!