Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 366 total)
  • Author
  • AvatarAustman

    I agree with Jimmy-T but point out:

    It won’t be s.49 (Cost of repairs, maintenance or other works) of the OC Act that applies because that section is about cost recovery when the OC has already paid for the works.

    It will be s.24 (Extraordinary fees) that will apply.  That’s when an OC raises special levies.   But the “benefit principle” still applies in s.24.

    Also, if the works are being done and funded over time in stages, with all lot windows either planned to be replaced or have already been replaced, it’s likely that the “benefit principle” won’t apply at all.



    in reply to: Strange vote with four options #48777

    Is it even a formal, General Meeting, poll vote?

    If it’s a formal GM vote then, if there’s a quorum, the majority vote wins.  If it’s a tie, in Victoria, the Chair has the option of a casting vote.  With no quorum it’s an interim resolution.

    If it’s just an opinion poll for the committee, it’s up to the committee to act on the results.

    in reply to: Balcony leaks – Victoria #47334

    “I find it absurd that I should be responsible for the failed waterproofing.”

    It’s written into laws in Victoria, specifically the “Subdivision (Registrar’s Requirements)
    Regulations 2011”, which means the OC can’t change it even if they wanted to.

    As JT states, the OC could vote to repair lot property.   That’s going to be unlikely unless most balconies are affected.

    And even then, if the repair cost was raised by a special levy, the OC is required to apply the “Benefit Principle” which means lots that benefit more contribute more.   So it still might mean that you effectively have to pay for your lot’s repair.

    Best to try to a building warranty claim. But it might be too late for that.




    scotlandx said “An APP entity is a business that has a turnover of $3 million or more, I am not sure a strata scheme is a business, and any scheme with less than $3 million coming in a year would be exempt anyway.”

    I agree.  The vast majority of strata schemes in themselves would be exempt from the Privacy Act because they turn over less than the required $3 million.  I suppose that means a self managed strata scheme could supply lot owner email addresses if they chose to.  Or that it wouldn’t be the Privacy Act that prevented them from doing so.

    But strata management businesses that turn over $3 million or more will not be exempt from the Privacy Act.  I can understand why they are reluctant to supply lot owner email addresses.



    in reply to: Laundry Hot water proposal to OC #46506

    The cost to heat the small amount of water used in the washing cycle of modern, water efficient washing machines, is minute.

    Residents who want cold can still select it and do their environmental bit.

    But I agree, there still might be rumblings.   But hopefully less than if the totally inefficient proposal suggested by the OP was adopted.


    in reply to: Laundry Hot water proposal to OC #46466

    Agree that it’s probably a non-issue.

    But even if it was an issue, it would probably be cheaper to install washing machines that will heat the water to whatever temperature is selected.  Many can do that.

    Rather than any massive building hot water systems installation.




    in reply to: Taking a neighbour to the Local Court #41890

    What do you think a solicitor would have charged for a small claims (under $20k) matter at the LC?

    Sorry, my comment was what I had read about getting professional representation in courts in general.

    I think you probably have a case, although I note that OCs can give written permission to make noise eg for renovations.  Hopefully within reasonable hours only!


    in reply to: Taking a neighbour to the Local Court #41847

    I have been told that judges feel insulted when plaintiffs or defendants represent themselves – it’s like you have no respect for their profession or the system and they tend to rule accordingly, regardless of the merits of the case.

    I’ve read that judges tend to think that self representation at court level can both waste the court’s time and be a major disadvantage to the self representing party.

    It’s because self representing parties tend to have both poor legal knowledge and a poor understanding of how the legal system works.  It puts them at a major disadvantage that can end up frustrating everyone involved.

    At Tribunals on the other hand, self representation is compulsory or encouraged.  It’s somewhat ionic then that OC/BCs, being entities, always need representation, even at Tribunals.  It need not be professional representation, but that’s the usual choice.

    in reply to: NCAT (re)orders mean more delays #41743

    Is it also unreasonable to assume that they wouldn’t be falling over themselves to get the lift company there to fix it, pronto.

    On that point alone, I’d have to say yes it probably is unreasonable to make that assumption. Why wouldn’t any SM or SC call the lift company if it’s a no cost to them warranty issue?   There’s likely to be a lift service contract in place too.    So cost shouldn’t be a factor in their decision.
    So I’d think some evidence of the SC’s or SM’s neglect on that point would need to be presented to a Tribunal. Not great for the OP, especially considering all their previous issues with the SC, but it seems to be the way Tribunals and Courts work.

    Perhaps the OP did present that evidence?

    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by .
    in reply to: NCAT (re)orders mean more delays #41670

    I think you’re being a wee bit harsh, Austman.

    Not meaning to be harsh!   More puzzled than anything.

    I was reading this thread independently.   I couldn’t see what a new lift warranty issue had to do with the NCAT appearance.  I think that’s a fair enough comment if just reading this thread.

    Now I see there have been a lot of other threads created by the OP!


    in reply to: NCAT (re)orders mean more delays #41650

    Even worse, he gave no time limit as to when all the remaining work (repairs to common property caused by the installation of a larger lift than the previous one) and repairing the lift door that has caused the lift to be broken down for the last week will be completed. A new lift!
    I give up!

    While I understand your frustration, if a new lift has been installed that has broken down, isn’t that an installation/warranty issue?   I’m not exactly sure what you expect the SC or the SM or NCAT to do under those circumstances?  Surely a repair has been requested?

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by .
    in reply to: When does a person become a member of the OC? #41257

    While it’s an interesting question, I doubt it will become an issue.

    I can’t imagine that powers of attorney would even present themselves at an AGM unless there was a “controversial” motion that could affect them.

    If it’s a more routine AGM, I doubt you even hear from them.  And even if you do, the question will only arise if their vote actually mattered at all.   In other words, would it have changed the outcome?

    In such hypothetical situations (for a typical AGM that is) it might be best to simply see how it unfolds.   It probably will be a non-issue.



    in reply to: Doing Without an Insurance Broker #40277

    You don’t have to use a broker but you might find:

    1. When getting a direct quote from the same insurance company, the premium stays the same or is very close.

    2. Dealing directly with an insurance company when making a claim is going to require a lot more time for a committee member.

    3. Getting annual comparative quotes will have to be done by someone else who is competent to do it.

    AFAIK both insurance companies and strata managers see the brokers as assisting in their offerings and might adjust their fees accordingly if they are not used.

    Let us know!


    in reply to: Cost reimbursement for by-law breach action #40120

    It might vary around Australia but in my personal experience with VCAT:

    1. I’ve been awarded my application fee when I have won my case against an Owners Corporation.

    2. OCs that I chair have been awarded both their application fee and their representation costs when they have won their case.

    OCs, being an entity, need representation at VCAT.  It can seen in VCAT published cases that most OCs choose to get professional representation.

    Awarding application and representation costs seems to be up to VCAT’s discretion.

    in reply to: Insurance claim and unapproved works #39959

    Can a strata insurance claim by the OC get rejected if an owner previously completed major renovation works without OC approval nor a special by-law?

    It might if it changed the risk in some way.

    But every strata insurance policy I’ve seen covers “Lot owners’ fixtures and improvements“. An OC might not be aware of what they even are.

    And to note that in many types of strata around Australia, the lot owner owns and maintains the building and so does not actually need strata approval or new by-laws/rules for internal renovations. Yet the insurance company and policy is the same around the Australia.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 366 total)