Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In the ACT at least, the default rule includes annoyance. Annoyance can include things without proven harm. The annoyance has to be ‘substantial annoyance’, not some trivial annoyance. I would argue that a smoky BBQ used often could amount to a ‘substantial annoyance’ but a BBQ used only infrequently could be a minor annoyance that should be tolerated.
Use of unit—nuisance or annoyance
- A unit owner must not use the unit, or permit it to be used, in a way that causes a nuisance or substantial annoyance to an owner, occupier or user of another unit.
- This rule does not apply to a use of a unit if the executive committee has given an owner, occupier or user of the unit written permission for that use.
- Permission may be given subject to stated conditions.
- Permission may be withdrawn by special resolution of the owners corporation.
With only 12 units, I’d find a few like-minded neighbours, work out an agreed reform and improvements agenda to roll out over the next few years, and stage a coup at the next AGM. Assuming that only 7 or 8 unit owners are take part in meetings, you only need 3 or 4 others to have a clear majority of the AGM and the elected committee.
Then you, the committee, start to direct the strata manager, not the other way around. Remember that any committee function can still be exercised by the committee when it chooses to exercise that function, even if the function has been delegated.
…the installation of an exhaust fan / vent for a currently un-ventilated bathroom. Steam condensation is a big problem and we’re worried about future water damage…
I have a suggestion for a workaround that might save you some bother: Our bathroom is internal to our unit without any window that could be opened. It is thus dependent on the exhaust fan. The problem was that we got a lot of steam condensation despite running the fan and having added shower dome (https://www.showerdome.com.au/). The shower dome is great for making the shower more comfortable in cold weather however by keeping in much of the steam and cutting out drafts.
The fix that worked brilliantly was to run a desiccant dehumidifier (https://ausclimate.com.au/products/cool-seasons-premium-10l-desiccant-dehumidifier) in the bathroom just during the time that we are showering. It works so well that we do not bother running the fan. We get no condensation whatsoever. The cost to run it is low since it is only needed for the duration of a shower. It does use more energy than a compressor-type dehumidifier, which would be suitable in a warmer area, but the benefit in winter is slight warming of the bathroom.
- This reply was modified 3 weeks, 4 days ago by .
Strata insurance, and insurance more generally, have been increasing well above CPI for the last few years. Climate change has reached the suburban hip pocket.
Hi all,
Today I received a rejection of my official request to keep the BBQ in place from the committee…
A decision of the owners passed as a resolution of a general meeting trumps the committee (or the strata manager). I would get the numbers to pass a resolution directing the committee to arrange whatever is needed to formalise the use of the space as a BBQ area. That might mean that the committee is sent away to draft a by-law to be adopted at a future general meeting. It might mean accepting your kind offer to lend your BBQ to the OC. The point is that you demonstrate that this is what a substantial majority of the owners want. You don’t necessarily have to have everything in place, by-laws etc. – just show you have the numbers and remind the Poo-Bah that he actually has very little power. Remember, a resolution of a general meeting directing the committee to do something trumps the decisions of the committee.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by .
Perhaps there has been a change of gardening contractor or some substantial work planned for the coming year. If I were the treasurer, I would have accompanied the proposed budget in the meeting papers with a short statement that ‘1) most expenses carry on much the same as the previous year with only small adjustments, and 2) the only substantial change is a doubling of the garden budget because …’
I am in the ACT so can’t advice on the peculiarities of NSW law but it seems really odd to me that the OC can’t simply resolve to use common property as it wants to. The BBQ isn’t for your exclusive use; it’s for the whole OC and you just happen to be lending yours to the OC to use where it would like to have a BBQ.
I still don’t see why the strata manager is bothering to create work for themselves. If the owners are happy, why worry beyond advising that they might want to formalise things.
Also, there are only 12 of you. Why do you need to pay the strata manager to have a meeting? A meeting can be called and held without them. You could do it in one of your units or with camping chairs in the carpark. Just comply with whatever notice requirement are set out in the NSW Act. The secretary can produce minutes. The chair can chair etc.
Who owns the common property and can decide how it should be used? You and the other 11 owners or the strata manager?
What motivated the strata manager to issue the edict? Were they simply repeating an owner’s complaint or acting on their own initiative?
I would suggest that with only this small area of common property available for a BBQ, seating and some garden beds, the best solution would be to talk to you neighbours about formalising how you would like to use the area. You could collectively draw up a simple diagram showing garden beds, some paved area, some seating (with storage under), a space for a BBQ (noting that there is currently one on loan from unit X) and whatever else people would like. Perhaps a picnic table next to the BBQ rather than a storage seat? When there is a consensus or at least a substantial majority in favour, put a resolution to a general meeting to say that diagram shows how the owners corporation wants to use the space. That should put the manager (or one grumpy owner) back in their box.
Noting that the chair lift will use electricity, how will the installer pay for this?
The electricity consumption would be tiny but it could be estimated and covered by a paying some nominal amount. Twenty dollars might have the unit owner in credit for a decade.
“… pot holes you need to avoid when transferring common property to a lot owner or worse still, selling the common property…”
I don’t think this is “selling common property”. It would be allowing an installation of private equipment on common property subject to conditions that would run with the unit.
“…“The supplier has plenty of references in private houses but none in stratas”. Do you know exactly the model chair lift under consideration? Will parts be available in future years? Will others be inconvenienced by the noise? …”
I think the committee should diligently research options including noise levels itself. Perhaps there are models of chair lift that would better fit the space or it might find an installer it prefers who can show an example that has been used in strata. With a little research, the committee could reassure itself that the best option is the one proposed or it could find something better and only approve that.
“Will the OC decide on the terms of a service agreement with the supplier or will it leave it to the lot owner?”
I think it would be adequate to make it a condition of approval that the owner of the chairlift ensures that it is serviced and safe and accepts liability for it and must undertake any repairs required by the OC at any time etc.
“…Say the local council approves it but in say, 5 years bans it for any reason. The council orders the OC to remove it…”
A condition of approval could be that the OC retains the right to require its removal at the lot owner’s expense without recourse.
I don’t think it would be all that hard to be accommodating on access while ensuring there is little risk to the OC.
I think they generally have a rail that sits close to the wall and the seat folds up to also be close to the wall. So, I would not expect much reduction in width or inconvenience to others.
I think this is the sort of thing that could be approved subject to a condition that ‘the unit owner at any time of lot X is responsible for all costs involved in its installation, repair, maintenance and decommissioning when no longer required’. That wording means that if the present owner dies or sells the unit, the responsibility remains with whoever buys or inherits the unit.
This website is a credible source of information on lithium battery fire risks: https://www.evfiresafe.com/
Of the top of my head, any resolution to adopt or amend or rescind an Owners Corporation rule requires a special resolution. Deciding to have more than seven members of the Executive Committee requires a special resolution.
I think deciding to dissolve the entire OC might be an unopposed resolution but that has not really come up as an issue where I am.
Download the latest version of the Unit Titles (Management) Act and do a text search for ‘special’, ‘unanimous’ and ‘unopposed’ and you could quickly compile your own list.
- This reply was modified 3 months ago by .
As a general rule (everywhere, I think, certainly in the ACT), a utility ‘conduit’ that services only one unit is the responsibility of that unit for repair and maintenance, even where it is located on common property.
Where I am, a much larger class B strata in Canberra, we also just present the higher level summary of income and expenditure totals against the budget. As treasurer, I write some commentary about the sorts of things covered in categories that might be less obvious and explanations for things that are substantially over or under compared with previous years or expectation. Through the year, I keep track of the individual items ledger because it is not uncommon for our managing agent to put an expense against the wrong budget line.
At the very least, your executive committee should have access to the detail and should demand it of the managing agent. A function of the treasurer includes keeping track of this stuff and a function of the EC is to supervise the treasurer. The EC cannot perform its function without this information from the managing agent. The EC should politely but firmly remind the managing agent that it works for the Owners Corporation, whose functions are exercised by the EC. The managing agent is not the boss.
Since your general meeting has directed your EC to provide that detail. If the managing agent obfuscates then the next step might be for the EC to engage an auditor to check the accounts and get that detail out of the managing agent.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 3 weeks ago by .