- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hello everyone,
My company imports and installs internationally accredited safety nets on windows and balconies to protect children from falls.
These safety nets have been used in other countries for many years and judging by the number of falls reported by the press anything that offers parents a solution should be seen as a good thing.
The problem is that we have been operating for 3 months and not one Strata out of at least 20 have approved the safety nets nor have they disapproved them.
I have clients who have been waiting for about three months for a decision from their Stratas, to install the safety nets .
They are worried about their children's safety and they would like to be able to play in their balconies with their children, as well as keep their windows open.
And now they won't even be able to open their own windows or only open it for 5cm, if the Law changes.
In my view this is very wrong. People should be able to have choices and to make them, not be deprived of all their rights.
Any views? Any help?
(pictures can be seen at https://www.safetynetsforlife.com.au)
-
Replies
-
Of course everyone is concerned about child safety, but it doesn't follow that you have the right to do anything that increases child safety without taking into account the impact it has on others.
You could argue that you neighbours shouldn't be able to have a dog because it may kill or hurt your child or that any visitor to your strata has to be police checked for prior convictions of violence to children. You have to balance the benefits to you with the impact it has on others. Child restraints in cars should be compulsory because it saves lives and doesn't impact negatively on others, plus people have to put their kids in cars to transport them.
The Strata is concerned with the visual impact of the nets and the negative affect it will have on the other properties and the physical effect on common property(fixing the nets to the structure). Parents aren't being forced to live in a property that is potentially dangerous to their child.
So I think that if the consensus of the other property owners is that they don't like them, then so be it. They shouldn't be held to emotional ransom by the excuse that it's to protect someones kids.
Unfortunately to me they look rather ugly, and they may impede access to emergency services should there be a fire. It seems as though once installed they would be likely to remain there, even if the child they were installed to protect had grown up or moved elsewhere.
Agree with previous poster that parents aren't forced to live in a property which is potentially dangerous to their child.
In the original post if parents want to play on balconies with their children, then the children would be under supervision and hence no need for the nets.
There will be many products potentially useful for strata residents, but I would hate this forum to turn into a series of advertisements for those products.
Sponsors and paid advertisements can be listed in another part of the site, but please not in the general comments.
FlatChatFan said:
There will be many products potentially useful for strata residents, but I would hate this forum to turn into a series of advertisements for those products.
I agree and that’s why I spare you all from the myriad companies who try to sneak in free advertising by fair means and foul.
I think this is an interesting issue worthy of discussion. Posting the link to the product was the easiest way to allow Flatchatters to see it so they can make an informed judgement.
Because it’s an interesting dilemma for strata owners, I will also be running this as my main Flat Chat column this weekend. Trust me, the Domain editor would be all over me like a cheap suit if he thought I was giving away free advertising.
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 do have Safety Nets in every window and balcony in my apartment and I truly recommend it for those who are really concerned about their children’s safety.
Stratas seems to be worried about the visual and the negative impact those nets would have in the build facade, but why would they recommend the installation of steel bars in windows, considering they have to be concreted in the window sill and will never be removed again unless a major renovation take place. The nets aren’t invasive, they don’t disrupt the view and from the outside they are very discrete and blend into any facade. There is no reason for Stratas denied the installation of the product.
The fixing structure of the nets does not compromise the property in any way, as the hooks needed aren’t long enough to reach the waterproof of the level above. The Safety Nets are easily removed once you don’t need it anymore. It is a quick, clean and affordable solution. For those who thinks of appearance and maybe a barrier in case of emergency, clearly you haven’t seen Safety Nets installed at all.
Families with kids are leaving in high rise buildings more than ever and those numbers will only increase in the forthcoming years. If it is obviously the total acceptance of the Safety nets is just a matter of time, why not have a look at it right now and allow the families to decide if it is suitable or not for themselves. Again, Stratas should be glad such product came on the market.
With the increasing number of reports of children falling out of windows and off balconies, I wonder how long it will be before the “safety police” start making these nets (or other restraints) compulsory??
Hmm
The original post from safetynetsforlife said:
“The problem is that we have been operating for 3 months and not one Strata out of at least 20 have approved the safety nets…”
Maybe I'm missing something here, but how did Kaqui get her Strata to approve them?
I do tell people about this product all the time. Other parents, clients, friends, as I said before I liked and I recommend it.
I got the approval from my Strata based on the fact that the nets aren’t permanent and will be removed once they become not so necessary. I am obviously responsible to patch any marks left by the hooks.
Children falling from balconies and windows is a serious problem in Sydney and as windows and balconies are invariably common property, it is potentially the responsibility of owners corporations, ie every owner, to address the risk.
The Children's Hospital at Westmead produced a report by the Working Party for the Prevention of Children Falling from Residential Buildings, 2011 https://www.chw.edu.au/parents/…..ing_falls/. The report includes statistics that show that Westmead alone treats two children a month who have fallen from a window or balcony. Many of those kids fall from apartment windows or balconies and given the fact that only 10% of children in Sydney live in apartments, it demonstrates a real, not fanciful, risk. Children who fall from house windows or balconies are likely to fall on grass or gardenbed; children who fall from apartments land on concrete.
It is by no means certain that an owners corporation would be held liable for a child falling from a common property window or balcony, but it is possible. Owners corporations can be liable for injury sustained on common property in accordance with occupiers' liabilty. If the risk is foreseeable and easily avoidable and steps were not taken to remove the risk, an “occupier” (which is the OC for common property), will be liable. The monetary cost of a child falling from a window on to concrete is not one many OCs would like to face.
There are a number of ways of ways to remove the risk. Nets are one. Easily installed locks on windows to ensure that if opened, windows can be secured to an opening of less than 10 cm are another. Removing climbable balustrades is another. Flysceens are not. Ordinary flysceens can never support the weight of a toddler or even baby.
Ultimately OCs can fix the problem whatever way they decide best or they can take the chance that having failed to address an obvious risk, they may be liable.
A second issue that I should have addressed above: under the model by-laws that apply to thousands of schemes, there is an exception to the general rule that people cannot screw or nail things on to common property without OC written permission – they can screw or nail “any structure or device to prevent harm to children.” It cannot compromise fire safety and it must be “in keeping with the appearance” of the building.
However, presumably “in keeping with the appearance” of the building means that you can't install bright pink screens on a dark brick building. It cannot be blanket ban on installing any screens. People are entitled to install screens for keeping out animals and insects so screens or nets per se cannot be a problem.
The upshot is that arguably, people do not need their OC's permission to install a screen or net for the safety of children, if the model by-laws apply.
As the OC is potentially liable for children falling from common property, the rest of the building should be grateful that individual lot owers are reducing their risk of liability by installing safety devices for kids.
Cathy
Given that there is no clear obligation for OCs to enforce their by-laws, where does that leave an EC that chooses to refuse permission for a net – or order one to be removed?
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.
There is no case law specifically on point that I can find Jimmy but I think the answer is that an owner does not have to seek written permission from the OC if nets are for the safety of children. Lot owners can just install them, (if there are by-laws like model by-law 5). Should an OC seek an order to have them removed, they may be on shaky ground. They could only do so if the nets are not in keeping with the appearance of the building, were not competently installed, were a fire or safety risk.
There is case law holding that an OC which refused to consent to the installation of roller shutters to keep out heat and light was behaving unreasonably by claiming it was not in keeping with the building:
Owners Corporation SP30403 v Landale, Christine [1999] NSWSSB 17 (2 March
1999)Roller shutters are more solid than nets and heat and light are less of a problem than a child falling from a balcony, so I would suggest that arguing nets can never be in keeping with the facade of a building is untenable. If roller shutters can be, nets can be too.
In relation to people's initial comments about parents not being forced to live in properties that are dangerous to children, it can equally be said that other owners are not forced to live in properties where they share common property with others. If you live in strata, you accept that you cannot have your own way about everything, including the look of the facade of the building. If we are balancing up a “right” to have certain visual aesthetic and a “right” to protect your child's life, my instinct is that the former should be compromised, not the latter. The existence of an exception in model by-law 5 for children's safety suggests that the legislature clearly intended children's safety to override the general provision that changes to common property have to be approved. Sounds pretty rational to me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.