- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi Flatchat,
The NSW strata plan where I live have adopted the model by laws.
The particular by law below is currently on the next general meeting agenda.
8 Children playing on common property
An owner or occupier of a lot must not permit any child for whom the owner or occupier is responsible, unless accompanied by an adult exercising effective control, to be or remain on common property that is a laundry, car parking area or other area of possible danger or hazard to children.
The OC wish to change the by law so as to stop children playing on the driveway as they believe that should an accident occur, e.g. child being hit by a car, the OC would be liable for any & all medical costs & would bankrupt the OC members/owners.
Is this true? Can an OC be liable for medical costs etc? Or would the building insurance cover it?
I am the only owner in the block with young children who ride bikes & scooters on the driveway with my supervision on a regular basis, no written or verbal complaints have been made to me thus far.
Could this be viewed as discriminatory or fraud against the minority?
Thanks
-
Replies
-
An OC’s insurance would typically include $20 million for 3rd party liability. Obviously, you don’t want to rely on that and would prefer to have the property as safe as is practical and reasonable. Where I am, we are unconcerned that some kids ride bikes and scooters and kick balls and so on in quiet parking areas and driveways. I’d suggest the solution, if one is needed, is to implement some traffic calming measures so kids can learn to ride a bike or scooter on a quiet paved area at home.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by .
Can an OC be liable for medical costs etc? Or would the building insurance cover it?
Depends on the insurance, but if the block permitted activities that the insurance didn’t cover, then yes, the scheme would be liable.
Could this be viewed as discriminatory or fraud against the minority?
Not really (and certainly not fraud on the minority, which is related to the sale of common property). The owners corp is entitled to control the use of common property and ensure that it is used safely for the purpose for which it was intended. So many kids are killed or injured on the driveways of private homes every year that you’re unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing at a tribunal.
It may be that noise is bugging your neighbours more than the fear of financial responsibility, but that’s the kind of argument that gets owners’ attention when it comes to a vote. You need to find an area where the kids can play safely and be left to be kids.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Surely a driveway would be covered by “other area of possible danger or hazard to children” ??
Surely a driveway would be covered by “other area of possible danger or hazard to children” ??
Yes, but the current by-law allows children to play in those areas under adult supervision.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
It may be that noise is bugging your neighbours more than the fear of financial responsibility, but that’s the kind of argument that gets owners’ attention when it comes to a vote. You need to find an area where the kids can play safely and be left to be kids.
And if there are no special places for kids’ play nearby, in such a case, can the authorities be approached to create such places?
Or is it the parents’ problem?In my childhood, we played wherever we wanted and everything was fine. Probably the author of the topic has very angry neighbours.
This by-law strikes me as a bit too vague. A driveway in one strata site could absolutely be somewhere you would not want children to play, supervised or not. A different driveway somewhere else could be an ideal shared common property space that presents very little danger (though anywhere shared with vehicles would have some). It could be the best place for kids to ride scooters or play a ball game. Why not install some traffic calming measures if needed at the site? An engineered safety solution is always better than a regulatory one.
The by-law is also vague with potential over-reach. Is a 12 year old walking home from school and up the driveway going to need to arrange supervision for the last bit of their journey lest they be in breach of the by-law?
It seems to me that each OC should work out whether they need such a rule for specific areas presenting real risk and if there is a risk, whether that risk could be minimised some other way than through a by-law.
If a child is hit by a car, wouldn’t the vehicle’s CTP insurance cover it?
The by-law is also vague with potential over-reach. Is a 12 year old walking home from school and up the driveway going to need to arrange supervision for the last bit of their journey lest they be in breach of the by-law?
It seems to me that each OC should work out whether they need such a rule for specific areas presenting real risk and if there is a risk, whether that risk could be minimised some other way than through a by-law.
The by-law is about “playing”, which is different from someone walking to/from their residence.
The by-law is about “playing”, which is different from someone walking to/from their residence.
Says ‘playing’ in the title but the text of the by-law says “…must not permit any child … to be or remain on common property…”
This is yet another respect in which the by-law looks weak to me. Can you prove the child was ‘playing’? Well no, but the by-law say ‘to be’ and the child certainly ‘was being’ on the driveway as they walked home from school. I vaguely recall somebody telling me the text of a clause in the law carries more weight than any heading. But I am not a lawyer. If it were really strictly limited to being about ‘playing’ children, I would expect the text of the by-law to refer to a child ‘playing’, not a child ‘being’. ‘Being’ seems as broad as you could get.
If a child is hit by a car, wouldn’t the vehicle’s CTP insurance cover it?
I don’t think this is about insurance, despite the arguments the committee is making to get support for the by-law. It’s about kids playing in an area designed for vehicular traffic and, possibly, some noise nuisance that isn’t being mentioned, perhaps to avoid identifying affected residents.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
If a child is hit by a car, wouldn’t the vehicle’s CTP insurance cover it?
I don’t think this is about insurance, despite the arguments the committee is making to get support for the by-law. It’s about kids playing in an area designed for vehicular traffic and, possibly, some noise nuisance that isn’t being mentioned, perhaps to avoid identifying affected residents.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
If a child is hit by a car that would be really tragic and horrible for everyone. That is why there is a by law about not allowing unsupervised children in hazardous areas, eg. Where vehicles are moving around. It’s not just insurance questions. What if a child is seriously injured or killed? Both the family and the person who hit them would be damaged. I (lay person) read the by law as obviously hazardous areas are not play areas and adults should walk their children through eg. When coming home, parking and moving to your home. Strata tends to be medium to high density areas, ie. With traffic. There is also the issue of damaging people’s cars if throwing balls or riding bikes.
In my block people complain about kids playing in the car park or being unsupervised (usually because of the noise which can be irritating if they’re running up and down stairs for example). I usually like the sound of children and feel for the kids. (I grew up in a rural area with plenty of area to roam and frolic). Our strata has a park nearby but parents don’t always take their kids out or supervise them.
We installed a safety mirror so cars can see around the corner and it’s a little bit safer. We could try a speed limit sign or slowing devices as someone else suggested. Signs warning to look out for children could help too. We might even get our driveway gate fixed. There’s not really room for a play area on the property.
So, to answer the question, as others have said, no it’s not discriminatory. It’s about looking after the interests of everyone in the building.
What if … the zone becomes a pedestrian zone. So children will be able to play safely and cars will drive slower…
Yep and add a speed hump or chicane or whatever to slow cars to walking pace. That’s what I meant by an engineered solution, rather than a regulatory one.
What if … the zone becomes a pedestrian zone. So children will be able to play safely and cars will drive slower…
Yep and add a speed hump or chicane or whatever to slow cars to walking pace. That’s what I meant by an engineered solution, rather than a regulatory one.
Yes, it’s a good engineering decision.
I added that to my post and the post disappeared 🙁Hmmm. Speedbump or by-law? Wonder which one most owners would go for…
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.