Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I had often thought of similar to a resident who used visitors parking as own. However I planned to put doo doos on the ground outside drivers side door so that when he left for work early in the morning he would tread in it but not notice until inside his car. To get full enjoyment it would have been preferable to see this happen. Couldn’t be bothered getting up early enough to watch.
Had similar experience in past strata premises. We had clause in our by laws stating that waterproofing of bathrooms/showers was owners responsibility in the townhouse complex.
We received a letter from an owner stating that the upstairs shower recess, which had been previously had a repair to a leak under the builders warranty, had again cracked 12 months after this repair. So when owner wrote to OC 4 years after crack reappeared, he stated that the floor of shower had “collapsed” and water had poured through the ceiling into level below, affecting wiring and plasterboard etc.
We directed owner to above mentioned by law re waterproofing. We also pointed out to owner that had the reappearance of this crack been addressed earlier, it would have been covered by builder as within 12 months. We did not carry out work on this shower recess.
There was a common belief in that complex that all was covered by strata so it didn’t matter how bad a situation or problem became because someone else would be paying for it anyway! So why report it?
If a shower recess is covered by the OC and the complex’s bylaws, generally it is done on a like for like basis. That is, if the floor tiles are mission brown 100mm x 100mm, then that is what is replaced, or close enough to it. And an owner is usually liable for tiles along the internal walls, the OC the tiles along the common walls. So not all OC. Not all the bathroom. And if the owner wants a nice clean brand new subway tiles, wall hanging toilet and new shower screen – that would be very nice. But that’s a renovation, not a repair!
Congratulations Jimmy on your 500th Flat Chat column.
Keep up the good work!
A special by law is not a deterrent because the EC or SM doesn’t want whatever the owner is proposing. It is a deterrent in that the owner may think that little change he or she wants to make is not worth the extra money nor the added responsibility.
In the case of this complex the owners who wanted to change common property areas of their units wanted to do so without providing measurements, materials or any specifications. These changes would have to comply with council regulations. Therefore, one would need to know what the measurements and materials were. One owner actually said that he would tell us the details after we had approved it.
Neither of these changes would have been of benefit to all owners as these two units were end units and only had one common wall. Both of these owners argued and argued that they should be allowed. It was obvious that the EC was required to do alot of running around. And by saying the EC, I mean me at the time. So we were advised to firstly notify the owners that a special by law would be required to cover their works. And they would have to run around providing the evidence that these works complied with council requirements. They then decided that they did not want to pursue it.
We had another owner recently who proposed a generic special by law be drawn up for a change they wanted to make. Again with vague information and specifications. It was discussed at the AGM. No other owner liked the idea of this proposed change. And the owner in question did not want to pay for a special by law themselves. Not such a good idea with the extra money.
On the other hand we do allow such things as pay tv satellite dishes on the roof tiles. Even though most of us do not have pay tv. It is probably less then 25%. But we all agreed that this would be of benefit to the complex to allow this.
By my stating that special by laws can be a deterrent I meant that it may make the owner think twice about their proposal. They may see that it is really not worth the money let alone the extra money. And if you don’t think it is worth the money, is it really such a great change for your unit or the complex? And in all honesty, the changes the above owners were proposing were not good ideas. Would have looked out of place. And if they ever put their places on the market, I believe alot of prospective buyers would have been put off by them. So we probably saved them money in more ways than one.
Special by laws can be used as a deterrent for owners wanting to make changes that may not be for the good of the whole complex. We have had a couple of occasions where owners have asked to make changes to common property areas of their units. These changes could not have been done by all units, due to the different build types in this complex, so doing a blanket special by law to allow such changes would have benefited some but not most. We also did not believe that these changes were a good idea. These owners however argued and argued. We were advised that should these works go ahead that a special by law, paid for by the owner and covering just the changes to the individual unit, be drawn up. Suddenly these “simple changes” became something more with the additional cost of the special by law. Needless to say the owners did not pursue.
The only special by laws here are those that benefit the complex as a whole and every owner. We had one done regarding the plumbing and bathrooms areas of the units. This was after continuous requests from owners to do everything from change the washers in the kitchen to re do the bathroom please. With the bathrooms we realised that in the model by laws any original tiles were considered common property however in this complex, where owners bought off the plan and could choose the colours, designs, fittings and fixtures to their hearts content, there is no such thing as an original tile. We have no idea what people chose for their units. Perhaps my neighbour chose hand cut italian marble tiles and an imported toilet suite. If so, and that was considered original, then we would have to replace like for like. Not to mention that the owners in this complex, as I have stated on previous occasions, believe that living in strata means that they can change their bathroom without permission and do whatever they like and if it all goes to pot then their neighbours will have to pay to have it done again. Hence the by law for bathrooms and plumbing.
We also have blanket approvals for foxtel dishes, whirly gigs, pergolas, all things that would benefit every unit in the complex. If it benefits all, then the complex can have a by law drawn up. But if it only benefits one, then that owner can pay and perhaps consider whether it is truely worth it, with the additional cost.
Though I have not had to address a noise problem in my home, I have had to do so when staying in a hotel on business. Guy next door liked to have his tv and radio blaring and also liked to yell whilst talking on the phone.
So I popped a note under his door. I listed the TV shoes he watched and what songs he sang to and on which radio station, and then I hoped his lunch with Bill the next day went well – the conversation he yelled into the phone. And hey presto! Problem gone!
Sometimes people do not know how loud they actually are nor how thin the walls are. But I believe that most people do not want everyone knowing all of their business. So by letting this hotel neighbour know that I knew his every move due to his loudness, he may have realised he had lost some of his privacy by not realising there was someone else on the other side of the wall.
So list the noise, type, and hour it occurred if you can actually hear it that well. Perhaps your neighbour will value his privacy more than he does your comfort!
I totally agree with Kangaroos comments about those in strata blame others, expect everyone else to pay and someone else to do the work.
But one thing stands out from SmileyHouses (hereinafter referred to as SH) second post. SH says that he brought up the matter of these repairs back in 2008. SH asked then that these works be put into the 10 year sinking fund plan. But this was ignored by the EC/OC. Perhaps if they had taken heed of this matter back then it would have been easier on the hip pocket. And perhaps if they had tackled the problem back then it would have been cheaper for each owner. Over the last 5 years no doubt the concrete cancer had only increased as has the cost of living not to mention the cost of materials and labour. Would have been cheaper 5 years ago.
Not to mention the fact that if they had started some kind of special levy and if extra money was collected each quarter for the past 5 years how much money they would already have in the bank to go towards the costs. Much easier to raise a some money over the years than find $60,000 at once.
If you want to make a claim against anyone, I would be looking at those who decided not to pay attention to SH back in 2008.
It is the Owners Corporation’s responsibility to arrange and pay for an expert inspection discover the cause of any damp problem. They can then determine whether it is a OC problem or an owners problems. A problem should be correctly investigated to ensure that it doesn’t affect the structural integrity of the building. Damp can equal water which in turn can lead to much bigger more expensive matters.
I believe it is fine for members of the EC to have a look at the problem. But it is up to a professional to state the cause of the matter.
We had an owners claiming there was rising damp in his unit. An expert determined that he owner didn’t maintain his property properly. He suggested some basic housekeeping to correct the problem. But at least it wasn’t anything major!
I agree with PeterC’s comments.
What if you get a loan for works in your complex. You get the work done. Then something unexpected comes up 6 months later. You have little money in the bank thats why you got the loan in the first place. So now you have to get another loan? That is exactly why so many people are in personal debt. They dont have the money, they put it on plastic/get a loan. Then something else comes up. Put that on plastic/get a loan. And so it goes.
If levies are expected then people can plan and budget for them. In this complex owners said they would prefer lower levies that increased slightly over the years, and special levy to top up the coffers should any major works need attending to. A loan would be our last option. Quite frankly for me strata finance should be like personal finance – if you dont have the money then maybe you cant afford it. There are alot of home owners out there who could learn from strata levies and put money aside each quarter for repairs/maintenance.
We have only had one special levy here to correct faults in the complex that the builder refused to fix under warranty. We spread the levy over a few quarters to ease the pain. We already had enough money to cover the works immediately. The levy was to top up the bank account after this unexpected expense. Would prefer to go down this path again. A loan should always be a last resort. A spreadsheet doesn’t allow for variables in real life.
For me it’s not a matter of being more flexible, but decided on whether you want to have and enforce by laws or not.
I don’t believe that you can enforce one by law but turn a blind eye to another. It should be like the three musketeers – all for one and one for all. If one person breaches a by law and gets a notification, then everyone should as well and all should support this.
I have a friend who, on moving into his apartment, was immediately told that he could not have his pet. He had followed all the protocols before buying and the complex had the “not unreasonably denied” by law in place for pets. They took him to mediation and then the CTTT. But did they take action against the residents parking in visitors spots continuously or on common property in general. No. Just him and the pet by law. So my friend who parked in the right spot but has a pet gets hauled over the coals but those who don’t have pets but park where they like get off without even a notice let alone the CTTT? They are both by laws. Just make up your mind. Either have by laws and enforce them all, or don’t do anything – ever.
But if you want to live in a lawless strata then go ahead. In my complex, in the past people came here to buy or rent and commented on how nice it looked. They could park in the visitors spots no problem to go to the open houses. Of course it looked good. Of course they could park. Everyone obeyed the by laws and those who didn’t were gently reminded and pulled into line. But then those same people moved in and wanted to do whatever they wanted and change everything. Without permission. Without punishment. Without consideration.
With these people constantly challenging and wanting everything to their own liking, we also have those who point out one resident breaking a by law but not another and seem to ignore that they themselves are in breach. We have an EC who issues notices to some but not to others and definitely not to themselves. The inconsistency in enforcing, or even noticing, has lead to this complex not looking so good anymore. Some might say shabby. Not so neat anymore, Not so orderly.
So its not about flexibility for me it’s more about fairness. It’s about giving someone a chance to redeem themselves if they do the wrong thing. It’s about taking action against those who think they are more important than others and can do what they like. It’s about consistency and making up your mind whether you want to enforce by laws or not. Or even have them. Mix in with the above a bit of common sense and there’s your flexibility. It’s not rocket science, it’s just strata. All for one and one for all.