- This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
We have been advised by our managing agent that anyone wanting to do renovations must take out an individual by-law (at an approximate cost of $2000 according to our managing agent). The consequence is that now noone seeks approval for renovations and just go ahead and do whatever they want.
What to do?
-
Replies
-
This is one of the stupidest rules I’ve seen (in NSW Strata act) and can you blame people for ignoring it when renovating a kitchen will cost them an extra $2,000 to absolutely no advantage.
I don’t see WHY you need a bylaw to do any internal renovations that doesn’t affect the structure or outward appearance of the property. What you do within your own home is yours business (so long as it doesn’t affect other residents adversely). I’d ignore this rule the same as your neighbors have done.
How many people would pay an extra $2,000 to have an a/c fixed to an external wall that might not be visible to anyone except that lots resident.
QLD just requires a simple majority vote authorizing these type of alterations and then only if it’s visible form outside the lot or structural.
@kiwipaul said:
I don’t see WHY you need a bylaw to do any internal renovations that doesn’t affect the structure or outward appearance of the property. What you do within your own home is yours business (so long as it doesn’t affect other residents adversely). I’d ignore this rule the same as your neighbors have done.
QLD just requires a simple majority vote authorizing these type of alterations and then only if it’s visible form outside the lot or structural.
I think the blanket demand for a special resolution by-law for all renovations isn’t only excessive and a disincentive to asking for permission, it’s probably not strictly legal.
However, if the renovations impact on common property in any way, then it is absolutely essential as it’s the only truly effective way the other owners can protect themselves against bad workmanship and damage to common property for which they could end up paying.
If the renovations don’t impact on common property, the lot owner doesn’t even need permission from the EC unless it says so in the by-laws.
Why would there be permission required in the by-laws? To control noise, dirt, times of work and access. Older buildings, especially, should be make sure there is a workable set of by-laws in place before their aging apartments turn into a permanent building site and everyone’s evenings and weekends are destroyed by DIY renovators.
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.
The only thing I can think of that might be useful here would be a general bylaw that specified what people should do when renovating. Perhaps, off the top of my head, that the EC be notified when renovations are planned, something about tradespeople with access to the common property, reasonable limits on disturbance to other residents and some sort of statement to be given about any potential impact on common property-say plumbing connections or whatever. I can think the OC might have an interest in various ways in renovations but they would all be about the conduct at the time and general to any renovations rather than specific to each one requiring a new by-law.
Peter.
NSW Strata Law demands that a by-law be passed when common property is to be altered or used solely by one lot owner. In our building we recently had two owners who retiled their bathrooms without permission. All we had to do was retrospectively pass by-laws giving them permission but passing responsibility for the maintanance and repair of the affected common property (the waterproof seal, for instance) to the lot owner.
In a kitchen renovation, things like water and water pipes could be an issue, depending on the extent of the renovation.
There’s clearly a need, however, for a quick, cheap and simple way of allowing renovations without having to re-write by-laws from scratch every time.
This is what the Act says:
65A Owners corporation may make or authorise changes to common property
(1) For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property, an owners corporation or an owner of a lot may take any of the following action, but only if a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed:
(a) add to the common property,
(b) alter the common property,
(c) erect a new structure on the common property.
(2) A special resolution that authorises action to be taken under subsection (1) in relation to the common property by an owner of a lot may specify whether the ongoing maintenance of the common property once the action has been taken is the responsibility of the owners corporation or the owner.
(3) If a special resolution under this section does not specify who has the ongoing maintenance of the common property concerned, the owners corporation has the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance.
(4) A special resolution under this section that allows an owner of a lot to take action in relation to certain common property and provides that the ongoing maintenance of that common property after the action is taken is the responsibility of the owner has no effect unless:
(a) the owners corporation obtains the written consent of the owner to the making of a by-law to provide for the maintenance of the common property by the owner, and
(b) the owners corporation makes such a by-law.
(5) A by-law made for the purposes of this section:
(a) may require, for the maintenance of the common property, the payment of money by the owner concerned at specified times or as determined by the owners corporation, and
(b) must not be amended or repealed unless a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation and the owners corporation has obtained the written consent of the owner concerned.
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.
@JimmyT said:
There’s clearly a need, however, for a quick, cheap and simple way of allowing renovations without having to re-write by-laws from scratch every time.
Agreed.
But if your example of re-tiling was done in OP complex these lot owners would have been up for a bill of $2,000 to have the bylaws amended which is excessive I believe.
Surely if owners make changes without approval which results in costs to the OC at a later date the lot owner (who did the alteration) is liable for all costs to repair the damage anyway so you don’t need an expensive bylaw to state the obvious (you already have one that restricts owners from damaging common property in most bylaws).
A cheaper solution would be to collect all these approvals (duly voted on) and once you have 10 then add these to the bylaws as the cost to change the bylaws is the same whether 1 is added or 10 (assuming you don’t require someone to draft them as well).
@kiwipaul said:
Surely if owners make changes without approval which results in costs to the OC at a later date the lot owner (who did the alteration) is liable for all costs to repair the damage anyway so you don’t need an expensive bylaw to state the obvious (you already have one that restricts owners from damaging common property in most bylaws).
That’s true if the owner is still there when the damage or alterations become evident. But if the renovating owner sells and the new owner doesn’t become aware until later that common property has been altered, then the repair and maintenance of the altered common property falls back on the Owners Corp – that’s why you need watertight by-laws that leave a paper trail of changes.
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.
@JimmyT said:
That’s true if the owner is still there when the damage or alterations become evident. But if the renovating owner sells and the new owner doesn’t become aware until later that common property has been altered, then the repair and maintenance of the altered common property falls back on the Owners Corp – that’s why you need watertight by-laws that leave a paper trail of changes.
That happened to me, a building inspection showed a excess moisture in an internal wall. A plumber could not find a leak in the wall, but the new tiles in the shower were laid over remnants of the old original tiles. The tiles moved and some cracked so I had the leaks sealed, at my expense, but eventually I will need to gut out the old and have a new bathroom built.
Once a bylaw is in place, eg. for solar panels, air conditioner installation, television antenna, etc., then all benefit, and I think, do not have to get an additional by-law again, for the same things.
.
@JimmyT said:
But if the renovating owner sells and the new owner doesn’t become aware until later that common property has been altered, then the repair and maintenance of the altered common property falls back on the Owners Corp – that’s why you need watertight by-laws that leave a paper trail of changes.
Not sure that is true. As generally it’s the new owners responsibility to make sure everything is in order before purchasing the property. That why they do searches before completion to make sure everything is kosher. Also how on earth is the OC supposed to know when alterations are done within the property if owner (who did the alteration) doesn’t admit to it.
Adding a sensor light (example) in place of a normal light outside your front door in effect means you need a bylaw to be legal at $2,000 a pop is ridiculous.
This also seems to leave the door open for malicious people to take other residents to CTTT over every little alteration they notice. Adjudicator would generally find in their favor and tell defendant to have a bylaw added to make their alteration legal (costing them $2,000).
@JimmyT said:But if the renovating owner sells and the new owner doesn’t become aware until later that common property has been altered, then the repair and maintenance of the altered common property falls back on the Owners Corp ….
@kiwipaul said:Not sure that is true. As generally it’s the new owners responsibility to make sure everything is in order before purchasing the property. That why they do searches before completion to make sure everything is kosher. Also how on earth is the OC supposed to know when alterations are done within the property if owner (who did the alteration) doesn’t admit to it.
It’s true all right. Have a look HERE. The legal point is based on the simple idea that sooner or later someone has to carry the can and if the new owner says they bought in good faith and there was no way they could have known there had been unregulated changes, and the previous owner is long gone, someone has to take responsibility and that’s the Owners Corp.
Our building recently passed a by-law that said if you changed any common property in your apartment, you and subsequent owners were responsible. I’m not sure how watertight that is because we even more recently passed two “enabling” by-laws that retrospectively gave permission for the installation of bathroom tiles in two different apartments, subject to the lot owners accepting responsibility for the upkeep of the affected common property.
On the question of the by-laws costing $2000 – that’s one figure from one building and we accept it’s a bit of a rort. Changing your light on your porch probably wouldn’t need a by-law. If there was an issue with it, your EC would tell you to remove the new light and replace the old one at your own expense. Also, they could give you permission to do that based on your acceptance of their conditions (ie, you repair the light at your own expense).
There is a lot of wriggle room in the actual management of strata – where we get into trouble is when we spend too much time poring over the law – or don’t read it at all.
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.
What I am little bit confused about and would like some opinion on is:
1. Whether an individual by law has to be passed each time an owner changes common property?
or
2. Can a “cover all” by law be passed that makes owners (and future owners) liable for changes they made to common property?
From reading this thread it appears the consensus view is that 1 applies but reading past statements made on this site I was of the view that 2 applied. If 2 doesn’t and can’t be applied I would say the OC is in a very vunerable position. What if an owner makes a change and the OC doesn’t know about it (which in many cases it can’t) and then maintenance is later required?
In practice if 1 is the case, surely it will in many cases (one reason being because of the expense) encourage a culture of owner’s not declaring changes.
The simple answer is yes, if an owner does renovations/work that changes common property, then firstly they need to seek permission to do it. The OC may then require as a condition of approval the passing of an exclusive use by-law to make it clear that the owner is responsible for that work going forward. This is because the OC hasn’t done that work, the owner has.
I think it is a bit extreme to say at the outset that anyone wanting to do renovations will have to take out a by-law, because there will be a number of circumstances where it won’t be necessary. Not all renovations will require changes to common property. So, to have a blanket rule like that will put people off even telling the OC, and that is counterproductive.
Yes, works to a kitchen may not affect common property, unless you change the plumbing. But putting an air conditioner on an external wall does affect common property.
The problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know, so the best approach is to require owners to notify the OC of any intended works. At the very least they should be telling the OC. because the workmen have to gain access through the common property. If it is major works then the owner should provide detailed plans. If it is evident from the plans that common property is affected then a by-law will probably be necessary. But that is in an ideal world and the real world doesn’t work like that.
I got up this morning to find that the new owner of a unit here was hacking up common property to install a gas line, they didn’t ask us or tell us. And there is now a pile of bricks dumped in the front garden. I am getting so tired of being abused and feeling like the bad guy, I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect some courtesy and co-operation. Otherwise go and live in a house.
I’m actually gobsmacked by some of these bizarre rules in NSW.
Seems to me that any alterations you want to do you keep quite about them (saving yourself having to have a bylaw added), once alteration complete and it develops a fault you lodge a request with the Strata to fix it if it’s common property.
Common sense seems to have done a runner in NSW Strata.
You’re right, I couldn’t have put it better!
@kiwipaul said:
I’m actually gobsmacked by some of these bizarre rules in NSW.Seems to me that any alterations you want to do you keep quite about them (saving yourself having to have a bylaw added), once alteration complete and it develops a fault you lodge a request with the Strata to fix it if it’s common property.
Common sense seems to have done a runner in NSW Strata.
You’re not alone in being gobsmacked but it’s not a rule, just a quirk in the law, a loophole that can be closed – if you’re aware of it.
As for doing work illegally and then when it breaks down, demanding that the Owners Corp fix it – that’s not going to happen.
What’s much more likely is that you will be instructed to return common property to its previous state and if you don’t do it, the OC will and then add the bill to your levies (as they are entitled to do).
The problem arises when the work is done, either without the OC’s knowledge or on a nod and wink basis (favoured by the old school who think by-laws are for wusses) and then the property is sold to an unwitting buyer.
‘Buyer beware’ in these cases is superseded by “Owners Corp take care”
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.
Note that if the OC has to reinstate common property because of unauthorised work by an owner (or just simple damage by an owner), the cost is a simple debt, it doesn’t form part of the levies. The owner can ignore that debt unless you take enforcement action through the courts. Not paying will not prevent you from voting etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.