- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Can an owner advise residents of the rules and regulations in a complex if they are breaking them (ie leave a note about their habit of using the visitors car park without permission)? Or is this for the EC to do? What can owner as a member of the Owners Corporation do?
I understand that the EC is responsible for organising a Notice to Comply if a resident is continually breaking by laws.
I notice that the official download of Notice to Comply mentions something about the strata stamp. Should we (the OC or EC) be in possession of such a stamp? I know the managing agent has one for official documents.
Cheers
-
Replies
-
Your EC should be the people to stick notices under windscreen wipers and issue Notices To Comply but if they won’t do the former, then there’s no reason you can’t (apart from the potential for personal confrontation). And if they won’t issue NtCs then you can go to Fair Trading and ask them to issue one on your behalf.
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:
Your EC should be the people to stick notices under windscreen wipers and issue Notices To Comply but if they won’t do the former, then there’s no reason you can’t (apart from the potential for personal confrontation). And if they won’t issue NtCs then you can go to Fair Trading and ask them to issue one on your behalf.Our EC issues appropriate letters (with the next letter being an NTC). However, they have incorrect names (not updated with SM) and the problem parkers are not receiving the letters. Other residents are placing a copy of the letter under windscreen wipers. Now residents are being threatened with legal action for issuing these official SM letters because they are issuing letters not signed by them but by the SM. The problem parkers are being told to ignore any letters on their windscreens. This escalates the issue because problem parkers are now ignoring every letter they get, for all types of issues (serial offenders). Can residents have action taken against them for re-issuing the official letter and/or official by-laws?
Legally I don’t see how anyone can take action against you for passing on information regarding action that people are taking that involves breaking bylaws (illegal parking). You are just informing the culprits that they are breaking the bylaws and advising them of what action can be taken against them if they persist.
I doubt these letters would be considered official notification but they would count if the issue went to CTTT and offenders claimed they didn’t know they were doing wrong.
LadyJ said
The problem parkers are being told to ignore any letters on their windscreens. This escalates the issue because problem parkers are now ignoring every letter they get, for all types of issues (serial offenders). Can residents have action taken against them for re-issuing the official letter and/or official by-laws?
In a word, NO. But who is telling the problem parkers to ignore the notices? Who says they are ‘illegal’?
I fear your strata scheme is being sidetracked by bogus claims of what is legal and what isn’t because your processes aren’t functioning properly.
Firstly, you need to get your strata roll up to date, including a current list of who your tenants are. I confidently predict your buildings’ strata manager and/or rental agents will claim there are privacy issues at which point you will refer them to Section 119 of the strata Act that requires them to provide the information (see below) or face a fine of up to $550.
Then you have to tell your notice-posting owners to give it a rest while you make things more official. At the same time, you need to tighten up the warnings and Notice To Comply system so that NTCs are sent to the owner or tenant with copies posted under the car windscreen wiper.
Then, and this is the most important thing, you need to follow through. In fact, I wouldn’t bother with warnings. A Notice To Comply IS a warning. It is not a fine. It tells owners that if they don’t comply, action will be taken to have fines imposed.
So tighten everything up. Tell your amateur traffic cops to back off or, at the very least, devise a standard note that can be issued saying something like: “This vehicle is parked illegally. Your details have been passed to the Executive Committee and strata manager with a view to a Notice To Comply being issued. A Notice Co Comply can lead to fines of up to $550 being imposed. Please do not park here again.” And tell them they have to pass the details of when the note was posted to the SM or EC so proper procedures can be followed.
Sounds to me that you need to have a meeting to discuss parking strategies – it can be a community meeting, rather than an official EC or General meeting – just as long as you can agree on a strategy
This is what the Act says about informing the Owners Corp when lots are leased.
119 Notice to be given to owners corporation of leases or subleases
(1) If a lot is leased, the lessor must give notice of the lease, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the commencement of the lease.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(2) If a lot is subleased, the sublessor must give notice of the sublease, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the commencement of the sublease.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(3) If a lease or sublease of a lot is assigned, the assignor must give notice of the assignment, in accordance with this section, to the owners corporation within 14 days after the execution of the assignment.
Maximum penalty: 5 penalty units.
(4) The notice must specify:
(a) the name of the lessee, sublessee or assignee, and
(b) the date of commencement or assignment of the lease or sublease, as the case requires, and
(c) the name of any agent acting for the owner in respect of the lease or sublease.
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.
Struggs – back to your original post, I hate to keep relating my experiences, or mistakes in this case, but I’ve had a few over the years that I’ve been Secretary in our Plan, and whilst I’m hoping to one day run-out of them (i.e. mistakes; no luck yet) I made another one by giving a Resident Owner a bundle of the “Friendly Reminder” notes that we use exclusively for rogue parkers (as it was such a problem, and still is albeit less so).
These colourful postcard-size notes were designed using one of the more prominent on-line printers / suppliers, and in order to be recipient friendly they featured some nice advisory words and even the graphic of a finger tied with a piece of string on one side, and the wording of our Special Parking By-Law (SBL) on the reverse side. I thought that style of note would have the desired effect, and it did, until this Owner caused me all kinds of grief when he made it his role in life to camp in the carpark and place one of our postcard-notes on the windscreen of every single vehicle who parked contrary to that SBL, including contractors’ vehicles and those of the cleaners who service our Plan’s short-term rentals.
Thank heavens he quickly ran out of notes, so with the benefit of hindsight I’d say that Provided (note the capital) the Owner doing the advising is a responsible person who’s aware of the Executive Committee’s procedures and informs them of the warnings/notes that he/she’s issued (like you would be / do), then I don’t see how there could be a problem. If however that Owner is overzealous or purports that the note is from the “Owners Corporation” or “Executive Committee” as entities, then that could cause a problem if recipient/s become litigious [as in LadyJ’s post (#3)].
I know that Jimmy T keeps stating that a NTC is a warning and/or advisory note, and he’s absolutely correct, but as kiwipaul observed (post #4) and I’ve experienced (yes another one) the CTTT does give an O/C brownie-points if it uses a prior means to advise residents and others that they’re in breach. So for the time being we’ll persist with our little talks, followed by an Advice Letter (or postcard-note for rouge parkers), and only then issue the NTC; that seems to keep me out of the CTTT (and I’m really chuffed about that let me tell you).
As for the “stamp”, that’s a Corporate Seal and whilst an Owners Corporation doesn’t have to have one, if it does them the stamp has to be of a design that complies with, and be used in accordance with the Federal Corporations Act (and a similar Act in NSW). That means a number of things most of which I don’t remember, but I do know that the stamp is used on contracts (like Agency Management Agreements) and on all official documents (like NTC’s), and that whilst there can be a more than one stamp the extras have to include the word “duplicate” on the face. The relevant section of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (the Act) is HERE.
I hold our Plan’s Corporate Seal but then we’re self-managed, and in most instances such as yours the Executive Committee would meet and resolve to issue a NTC, and then instruct the Strata Manager to do that in accordance with the Act, including the placement of the stamp; so you (i.e. the E/C and O/C) probably don’t need to hold one.
@Whale said:
I know that Jimmy T keeps stating that a NTC is a warning and/or advisory note, and he’s absolutely correct, but as kiwipaul observed (post #4) and I’ve experienced (yes another one) the CTTT does give an O/C brownie-points if it uses a prior means to advise residents and others that they’re in breach.I don’t disagree, but I reckon you are just as likely to get one of these nitpicking paper-shufflers at the CTTT who only takes into account information that’s provided on the correct forms as stipulated by the Act.
Q: How many strata tribunals are heard in NSW, on average each week. (answer at bottom of post)
Over the years I’ve had so many versions of the “how many warnings do we have to issue before we can fine people” question I occasionally like to remind everyone what an NTC is not a fine, not a summons and definitely not the be-all and end-all.
I also think that too often in strata we’re looking for a magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution when each strata scheme needs to devise its own protocols. As Whale discovered, the risks of creating a parking vigilante by allowing people to post semi-official notes are great. However, the basic idea of these notes is sound because it works in that scheme.
I have lived in strata schemes where the “polite reminder” was regarded as a free pass: “parked illegally again … got away with it … result!”
I think each scheme should devise a system that works, then stick to it. If a polit warning does the trick, it’s a better solution for community harmony than the heavier-handed Notice To Comply.
Definitely don’t issue NTCs if you’re not going to follow through, but that applies to polite warnings too. Don’t have your carpark looking like an explosion at a printworks and do tell owners when things are getting out of hand and you are about to impose order where chaos has reigned.
A: 3 – it’s a seriously under-utilised option, according to our Fair Trading Minister
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.
Thanks for all the good info. To answer who is telling the serial offenders not to take any notice of the official letters/by-laws under wind-screens is the inexperienced Chairperson and the SM they instructed to send out a letter re ‘bogus letters and notes’. This Chairperson accepted assistance for a while but now knows it all. (New resident who is not familiar with history of our strata.) They’ve also indicated that the SM only works for them, no-one else. Accepted that the SM takes directions from the EC/Chairperson, but the SM does work for us all. The Chairperson is now telling the serial offenders to ring the SM and verify that the letter/by-laws has come from them. Not sure what the SM is actually telling these residents, but feel it is to ignore the letter unless it has been posted. This is why some residents are making sure the letters/by-laws are actually received because the strata roll isn’t updated, or landlords won’t pass the info on to their tenants. The SM did ask for updated details, e-mail addresses, etc, but people are slack and haven’t supplied. The Chairperson was previously informed that a couple of the residences are in the old name and hence correspondence won’t be received – The new resident will just forward the mail to the old resident or bin it. So, the Chairperson knows of the practice and has ignored any advice. We suggested that they get the correspondence from the SM and actually place in the letterboxes themselves. All the while we are being charged for photo copying and postage and the correspondence not being received. The serial offenders (not only parking) are having a grand old time ‘doing their own thing’. Our new Chairperson is also not screening the correspondence being sent out by the SM – the contents are not covering off on all issues and hence leaves gaps for offenders to ignore.
The problem in larger blocks is identifying who actually owns the offending vehicle, and/or which unit it relates to.
OCs can’t just go to a police station or the RMS and ask who the owner is. Quite often the “owner” has a different registered address anyway. The only way is to be around when the vehicle is driven in to the building, and then try and discretely follow the offender to his/her front door. Who is going to do this?
Leaving notes doesn’t have much effect, the owners know they can’t easily be traced. I imagine an NTC would need a name to be valid ?
Time to have an “audit’ of cars. The EC should send round a circular telling people that you are trying to establish which cars belong in the building and which are non-resident or abandoned cars. You want them to give you their registration details and unit numbers to make sure they are not identified wrongly as abandoned or “rogue” parkers who are non- residents.
Explain in the note that following the audit, cars that are illegally parked in visitors parking, on common property or another owner’s car space and are not on the register will be removed from the building so they can be dealt with by being declared abandoned and towed away by the local council.
In the case of cars that are on the register but wrongly parked, information will be provided about where and when they can park legally. You could also go a bit further and ask owners who have car spaces that are empty and wish to rent them (to residents only) should let the EC know and the information will be passed to people who need extra parking.
In the meantime, you could pass a by-law requiring all residents – owners and tenants – to register the car registration numbers and their unit numbers with the strata manager and EC within, say, 14 days of moving into the building or acquiring a new car or, indeed, when a parking audit is conducted.
We did a vehicle audit in a building because we suspected residents were renting unused car spaces that they didn’t own to their friends and people who worked nearby. We left the audit notices on every car and in every letterbox. Over one weekend, about 20 cars disappeared from the car park, never to be seen again
FYI: Removing illegally parked cars is not strictly legal in itself but it’s very effective, if THIS STORY is anything to go by.
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.