- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I know that the much-publicised changes to (NSW) Strata Regulations in July 2013 to require Owners Corporations and/or Unit Owners (depending upon the media story) to by 2018 fit devices to all windows above the ground floor to prevent opening of those beyond 125mm are still in the pipeline, I can foresee some problems.
Nanny-state syndrome and parents’ responsibilities aside, vision that I’ve seen on television reports variously shows Minister Roberts holding or windows fitted with a device of a type that whilst effectively locking the window in either the fully closed or set open position (125mm), allows the window to open unrestricted to any position when the device is unlocked.
The problems I foresee relate to the device needing to be key-locked in order to be effective, possibly with a different key to each device / window, to the potential for those keys to be misplaced by residents, and moreso the fact that an unlocked window can be left open in any position; including fully open.
Wouldn’t the State Government’s objective of preventing young children from accidentally falling from open windows be better achieved by the fitting of safety-type insect screens, or at the other end of the cost scale by the permanent fixing of a piece of aluminium extrusion or a piece of wooden dowel into the track so as to absolutely prevent the window from being opened beyond the prescribed 125mm?
Hopefully the State Government’s amendments will focus on the outcome of what’s proposed rather than prescribing what O/C’s / Owners must do to comply.
Frankly though, whilst I appreciate the problem the publicised solution seems thus far ill-considered in my opinion; what about children falling from balconies after gaining access via sliding doors?
-
Replies
-
@Whale said:
And all for a $5 fitting; you’re joking right?
But the whole point is that he already has locks on the windows that lock them closed, so he is complying with the 2018 act IMHO.
While people (and Fair Trading) are concentrating on saving lives of children from falling out of windows above ground level, they really (in my opinion) have not thought the matter through sufficiently.
If you talk to someone in the FIRE BRIGADE they will tell you that by locking windows (and worse if the opening mechanism (key) is lost / faulty) YOU HAVE ELIMINATED A MEANS OF ESCAPE IN CASE OF A FIRE.
Such an event would cost more than one child’s life I suspect.
Pity submissions closed on 27/4/2015>
I agree totally with Winston regarding window safety locks removing an escape during a fire. Admittedly you probably would not want to jump from a multi-storey building to escape a fire but fire brigade access is also restricted especially in the incidence of lost keys. I too wonder where responsible parenting is represented. No child death is acceptable but given the number of children who live in multi-storey buildings, very few fall from windows…. Again one is too many but wondering how this will play out.
The mixed responses to my above question prove the law is ambiguous.
I am strongly against putting a second lot of locks on my sliding windows which already have locks. (There is no law which says you must open your windows.)
Firstly, I would have to replace all my window furnishings. Not only would it be impossible to operate vertical drapes with the window locks my SM wants, it would also be impossible for me to get any air into the rooms, because I have fixed material drapes down each side of my windows which are wider than 12.5cms. (I have shown my SM the $5 locks available from Bunnings, as mentioned above, and he reckons they don’t comply.) I have my windows fully open in Summer and want to continue to do so. It would be much cheaper for me to pay the fine than replace all my window furnishings.
Secondly, is the matter of fire danger as mentioned by Winston above. I could easily climb out of my second storey bedroom window and exit via a tree in the case of a fire, but not if the window opening was limited.
Thirdly, I have my ensuite window fully open all the time to prevent mould. I’m not prepared to limit the opening.
Fourthly, there are NO children in my townhouse. When there were, years ago, I was more than capable of making sure they didn’t fall out a window.
This law discriminates against strata dwellers. It implies we are incapable of supervising children, as opposed to home owners who don’t have to install window limiters. There are far more children living in two storey houses than there are in townhouses. I can’t find one example on the net of a child falling from a suburban townhouse.
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.
@Whale said:
the ability to seek the imposition of $550 penalties against you (yes, in multiples if necessary), and the authority to enter your townhouse for the purpose of installing window locking devices there of a type that’s compliant (of which the $5 item is one) whether you like it or not!
Yes but this $550 penalty can only be applied after they have lost their case at Adjudication (which I doubt they would as they already have locks on the windows) and refused to comply with the Adjudication ruling. If it ever got this far they would only have to comply with the adjudication to avoid the fine.
Also these child proof locks have the ability to be disabled with a key to enable the window to be fully opened (which satisfies the fire escape concern) and nobody has explained to my satisfaction why a locked window is not considered childproof if locked shut.
@AJP said:
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.
You are making the assumption that you will be there every minute of every day when there is even the remotest chance that may be a child in your home. The law, quite rightly, does not allow you to make that assumption. Your argument is very similar to the anti-pool safety argument … and yet dozens of children used to die in “safe” swimming pool areas.
Best to err on the side of safety, forget your own preferences and look at the law, and the best place to start is with THIS LINK.
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.
I don’t have a problem with the intention of the act I have a problem with how people are interpreting it because it is so badly written (it’s not just bylaws that are badly written).
It doesn’t clearly define what sort of locking device complies, the only criteria is that the window cannot be opened more the 12cm which a normal security lock complies with (in locked position opening is 0cm) so how does this device not comply.
Yes, Whale, Like a dolphin with one flipper, we are going round in circles. Discussion closed.
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:
@AJP said:
Frankly, I can’t believe that I am being told how far I can open MY windows in MY home just because some parents in CBD high rise buildings can’t supervise their children.You are making the assumption that you will be there every minute of every day when there is even the remotest chance that may be a child in your home. The law, quite rightly, does not allow you to make that assumption. Your argument is very similar to the anti-pool safety argument … and yet dozens of children used to die in “safe” swimming pool areas.
As I live by myself and no one else has a key to my home, I can make the assumption there isn’t the remotest chance of a child being in my home when I’m not there, which is different to a pool because children can wander into backyards when the owner isn’t there.
If this law was really about child safety it would target the homes where children live rather than where they don’t, it would allow windows to be locked closed rather than locked open where locks already exist, it would allow a piece of dowl to be placed in sliding windows instead of insisting on locks, and it would take account of fire safety rather than expecting people to be fiddling around with keys and locks in the dark and smoke while their house is burning.
If our SM was serious about enforcing the law he would let us install the $5 locks at a total cost of $100 instead of over $1,500. (I reckon he’s getting a commission.)
Someone is making a lot of money out of this ineffective law. My mother lives in an over 55s complex of 4 single storey villas where all the windows go from the ceiling to the ground, (i.e they have a fall of 5cms) but they have to pay $220 for someone to sign a piece of paper to say they don’t need locks. Seriously!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.