• Creator
    Topic
  • #7831
    Billen Ben
    Flatchatter

      I just got an email from OFT about the following:

      Have your say on strata and community laws

      The New South Wales Government will commence a comprehensive review of NSW strata and community title laws from mid 2012.

      Anyone interested in making comments, raising specific issues or suggesting possible solutions can participate in an online consultation hosted by public policy think tank Global Access Partners. The online forum is open until 29 February 2012. For more details go to https://www.openforum.com.au/strata

      Don't miss this opportunity!

    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #14454
      Anonymous

        That's terrific. Launch the process right before Christmas when everyone's looking he other way. Thanks, however, for posting this info.

        Just like our Executive Committee, holding an EGM the first day of a school holidays, day after a long weekend; nobody turned up except there were lots of proxies.

        Peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

        #14455
        Sir Humphrey
        Strataguru

          I am writing from the ACT. I would recommend that you mine the recently amended ACT legislation for ideas. I made submissions to the review on problems we encountered trying to get some sustainability measures in place. I am pleased to say that every one of those issues was addressed in pretty much the way I recommended in the new legislation. Feel free to quote any of the below in submissions to the NSW review. And take heart, sometimes democratic processes do work!

          If anyone wants further detail please get in touch. In particular, think of the benefits if, embedded within the load, there was solar generation on the roof of every strata building across our cities. This would seriously save some money for the strata buildings but also reduce the need for new generation and distribution upgrades to cope with air-conditioning loads. This saves money for everyone else too. Much of the increase in electricity costs if for infrastructure upgrades and very little is for various measures such as the renewable energy target, in spite of the rhetoric of some pollies. For obvious reasons solar electric output tends to track air-conditioning loads pretty well. 

          See https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2011-41/default.asp for the ACT legislation. 

          In particular see Section 23. It says an OC can approve sustainability equipment on the common property with a single, ordinary resolution. A plan must be presented that covers how it is to be financed, any easements required, a maintenance plan, the costs and long term environmental benefits, but if you cover all that in a plan it can be voted on once and simply. Previously this might have required different classes of motions for its various parts.

          The sustainability infrastructure can be held ‘in trust’ for the owners, rather than as ‘agent’. The point of this bit is that any feed-in tariff you might earn from solar PV is taxed differently depending on the relationship between the OC and the owners. When it is ‘agent’ income in respect of the common property is taxed in tiny slices in the hands of individual owners who will be on different marginal rates or might have effect on a pension. In any case a nuisance and not an equal benefit to all owners. As far as I know our OC was the first to get a tax ruling on this question and were able to feed that to the review of the Act. 

          The ACT legislation has always had a ‘prohibition on business’ section. This was the only bit that had been anticipated by the local pollies as an impediment. The tax office gave us a ruling that our proposed PV system would not be business because it was of a scale that matched our costs for utilities (IE we could cover our electricity costs by making as much electricity as we use) and not on the much larger scale of typical commercial electricity generation. This has been picked up in the Act so that PV on this scale even when profitable via feed-in tariffs is explicitly not contravening the prohibition on business section. However, the Act also includes a note suggesting the mechanism by which PV on a grander scale could be installed. IE a route is left open for every large building to have commercial scale generation across the roofs. 

          Elsewhere the Act says that an owners corporation can use funds from the sinking fund for the above if the sustainability infrastructure is an improvement of the common property that was anticipated as part of a properly constituted sinking fund plan.

          Also, the Act prohibits Rules (By-Laws) that prevent sustainability measures. IE you can’t ban a clothes line or curtains/blinds that insulate well or solar hot water or electricity. 

           

          Good Luck!

          #14559
          Whale
          Flatchatter

            Herewith my Submission to the NSW Government’s Review of the State’s Strata and Community Title Laws; NOT to in any way influence the nature or content of Submissions by others, but simply to raise awareness of the opportunity to make a Submission among those in the Strata Community via https://www.openforum.com.au/strata

            Response to Q1:

            Strata & Community Plans have increasing numbers of tenants, so there needs to be a change in the convoluted process whereby an Owners Corporation (O/C) can enforce compliance with its By-Laws, and the situation where an O/C cannot presently take action against tenants in Breach in the Tenancy Division of the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) where Tenancy Agreements can be terminated, as opposed to in the Strata Division where fines are small and infrequently applied, where tenants’ compliance with Orders is rare, and where follow-up / enforcement by the CTTT is infrequent and ineffective.

            Permit Owners Corporations to manage their Plan and hold them accountable for doing that!

            Response to Q 2:

            (i)             Levy amounts – The current requirement for Sinking Fund Plans(SFP) has failed because there is no penalty applicable to Planswho don’t have a SFP, and because many of the Organisationswho prepare them produce little more than a “shell document”with some arbitrary amounts “plugged –in”.

                             There needs to be some legislated “rules” around the minimum amounts of Levies that must be raised by Owners Corporations,where a formula (for example) takes into consideration thePlan’s location (e.g. sea-side), its construction materials, its                age, and movements in the CPI all factored into a minimumLevy amount ($) per Unit of Entitlement.

            (ii)            Property Managers /  Agents – need training in or have knowledge of the tenancy aspects of Strata Legislation, such as the requirement to include By-Laws with Lease Agreements, S119 Notifications to the O/C,  and the Tenant  Disclosure                         Requirements of the Regulation in the context of violent incidents involving tenants, and the Legislation needs toformalise a legal relationship between Property Managers andthe Owners Corporations of the Plans into which they placetenants (not just between Property Managers & Landlords)

            Response to Q 3:

            How long is a piece of string?

            (i)             Develop a “core” set of By-Laws that all Strata and CommunityPlans MUST adopt, followed by a set of “model” or suggestedBy-Laws that Plans may optionally adopt in accordance withneed / relevance.

            (ii)            Attach penalties (unit based) to each of the above, and allow Owners Corporation to develop and register their own Special By-Laws in accordance with the provisions of the current State Legislation, and permit them to also include their own “reasonable” Fees as a penalty which should bear relativity tohose set in the Legislation OR perhaps be limited by thatLegislation (e.g. to 2 penalty units; currently $220)

            (iv)           Allow the Executive Committees of Owners Corporations (O/C) to approve the issue of Breach Advisory Notices (1), followed byNotices to Comply only if the Breach continues.

            (v)            Permit Owners Corporations to invoice penalty amounts directlyto those in Breach of By-Laws (Core, Adopted, and Special), andallow those in Breach to appeal to the CTTT – who would rulebased solely upon whether or not a By-Law had been Breached,  and whether or not the legislated procedures (as proposed) hadbeen followed absolutely by the O/C.

                             The costs to lodge an appeal should be increased so as to limitfrivolous actions, the O/C should be required to reimburse thosecosts to the Appellant if their appeal is upheld, and if the appealis lost the Legislation should include enforcement action to             ensure payment to the O/C (e.g. via the State Debt RecoverOffice).

            Response to Q4

            The Dispute / Breach of By-Laws handling process should include:

            • mandatory mediation at the Plan level (e.g. between those allegedly in Breach, the Accuser, an Executive Committee Rep, and the Strata Manager), followed by the issue of a written record of what (if anything) was agreed — and if the Breach continues;

            • the issue of a written Advice of the alleged Breaches, — and if the Breach continues;

            • the authorised issuing of a Notice to Comply – and if the Breach continues;

            • the authorised issuing of a Penalty Invoice to the person/s in Beach by the O/C;

            • optionally, and Appeal to the CTTT by the person/s in Breach;

            • enforcement action via the SDRO if the Appeal is lost  
            #14560
            FlatChatFan
            Flatchatter

              Thank you Whale.  Your comments are a good example of what they want.

            Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.