Curly

Another update…. At our December AGM our motion that the OC seek compensation from the lot owner for the convertion of common property lawn to concrete was voted against by everyone else. No one apart from us cared that OC funds had been used!

Thankfully a motion about parking a car on common property 24 hours a day was modified to “only in front of an owner’s garage and not on the lawns” So now everyone including the guy who converted the common lawn to concrete (using OC funds) can park there legitimately even though it isn’t quite lined up with the front of his garage.

At the meeting he also denied that his garage has been converted to a habitable room even though the recent pest inspection report which was circulated clearly stated that it was.

There was heated discussion about the motion on banning taking photos – it certainly got very ugly and we were vilified for having taken photos of cars parked on the lawns and the damage it caused. Thankfully the motion didn’t get up nor did the motion some clown had about converting more lawn areas to concrete for parking, possibly only because the Strata Manager didn’t think it was a good idea to turn the complex into a concrete jungle and reminded owners that NCAT uses photos as evidence.

After the meeting as we were leaving one of the lot owners stopped us and told us we were nasty for taking photos and we should try to get on with our neighbours. The lot owner who had the lawn converted to concrete at the OC’s expense also passed on his good wishes yelling at us to “f**king get a life” as he drove past our villa. Nice!

So after all this I don’t think there is anything we can now progress to NCAT as the majority of owners clearly had no concerns with OC funds being used to convert the lawn to concrete for the benefit of a single lot owner.

Here’s an update on the above issues. The area has been concreted and the lawn is gone. 

Interestingly the meeting minutes include the following note. “this approval does not provide any owner permission to park on common property and is not considered as creating a new parking space. The reason for the works is to provide better access to the garage for lot x as they were driving over the lawns due to the restrictive nature of the driveway”. 

This is not true as the previous owners seemed to have managed for the previous 10 years, anyway to add insult to injury the lot owner and his son now park on the new concrete every day as their garage is converted to a games room. 

I did apply to NCAT and we recently had our Fair Trading mediation stage. The Secretary who attended said they want eveyone to get along and don’t want to Issue Notices to Comply to the other people who park on the lawns. The Secretary said they would instead speak to the people parking on the lawns and tell them to stop. When I mentioned the new concrete area is now being used for parking which contradicts the note on the EGM minutes and is in breach of one of our existing bylaws I was told to get over it. So I now have the option to pursue these matters at NCAT.

I don’t think it’s worthwhile going to NCAT about the lot owner and his son parking on the new concrete area as all they need to do is ask for and get permission to park there and they are off the hook.

We have our AGM in December and I’d like to include a motion to get the lot owner to pay for the concreting as he is the only one who has benefitted from the change.  At last year’s AGM he did volunteer to pay for the concreting when I raised the issue of the damage caused to the lawns.

Hopefully depending on how it’s worded when the lot owner sees it in print they will realise that OC funds shouldn’t have been used for this work as no one apart from him has benefitted.

Would this motion be possible and how should it be worded?

Following on from my email above the strata manager has responded with – “This is not a misuse of funds as the shower screen is covered under the strata insurance policy and we are in the process of making a claim to the insurance company”.

I don’t understand why would repairs to these two shower screens need to go through the OC’s insurance when: 

• for one lot there is a registered special bylaw which transferred the responsibility for the repairs and maintenace of the renovated bathroom to the lot owner, the current Secretary.
• for the other lot which hasn’t been renovated shower screens are not included as common property under legislation.

Has the Strata Manager made a mistake and how do we get it resolved?

Well we had our EGM and after the Secretary clarified that the lawn area was being concreted to allow a lot owner to park there most attendees voted for this change and for the OC to pay – I kid you not. The lot owner said they’d continue parking on it whether it was lawn or not – I kid you not.  I asked the Chairperson to rule the motion out of order stating that if passed it would be in direct breach of our bylaws against parking on common property. Some attendees actually asked that the by law about parking on common property be abolished! 

I asked that the OC seek confirmation from Council whether a DA was required as we were changing the footprint by increasing the the ratio of hard surfaces.  At this point the strata manager said they’d consult with their boss and get back to us on the matters I had raised . I advised that I would take the matter to NCAT if due diligence wasn’t adhered to. My motion to issue notices to comply to lot owners who also park on the lawn was also rejected. 

I’d appreciate some guidance on what orders I can/should seek at NCAT about our parking bylaws not being enforced and whether I can get the original motion to convert the lawn to concerete disallowed as the work is purely being done to allow illegal park on common property?   

Thank you Dech for you response.

The EGM agenda arrived yesterday and the motion is a special resolution to replace the grass with concrete. Interestingly a P.S. is included in the motion that in the event the motion is not approved reinstating the grassed area will cost approx $3000.

Would I be able to get the motion declared out of order at the EGM because the sole purpose of this change to common property is to allow a lot owner to continue to illegally park on common property which is a breach of one of our bylaws. I certainly can’t see any motion giving anyone exclusive rights to park anywhere. If this tack fails could I get an order at NCAT? 

I’ve got a motion on the agenda to issue Notices to comply to the lot owner and other residents who are also currently parking on our lawns, so I doubt I’ll be popular at the EGM, however I don’t want this precedent to occur – removing lawn to allow for illegal parking on common property will only devalue the complex. 

If people come to their senses and the motion is not passed and the grass is reinstated how can I get the SC to pay rather than the OC since it was the SC that didn’t follow proper procedures and commenced this work without OC approval? 

Hopefully someone can suggest some ideas I can explore.

Thank you  

Thank you for your response.

I’ve had a look at the NCAT interim orders form and note that all details in the application would be provided to all parties.  This means that a very intimidating man and his adult son would know that the application was made by me as I would be listed as the applicant and he’d be the respondent. He would also have all my contact details including phone and email from the application.

While it is obvious that this owner is making an unauthorised land grab for more illegal parking I would feel very uncomfortable once he knew that I personally applied for the interim orders against him and not the OC. Is there anyway I can get the OC to progress this?