Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
This can also be a problem when tenants move out of a property. All their unwanted appliances, clothing and household “junk” gets dumped into garbage bins, and furniture is left lying around the common property.
Even new tenants moving in can generate a large volume of packaging from their new furniture and appliances.
Unless the offenders are caught in the act, it is difficult to recoup the clean-up costs.
Most of my on-line shopping is done through PayPal. They deduct the payment from my cheque account 21 days after purchase. I don’t know if this can be done with a corporate account.
I don’t think the electricity authorities are too keen about unqualified people being in meter rooms, for safety reasons. There is also a security risk from mischievous interference with settings.
If there is any incident in the building that necessitates access to this area, it should be attended to by a licenced electrician.
Perhaps the cleaner could be given a more appropriate area to store his spare light bulbs. Likewise, if painting or tiling is impeded by electrical installations, perhaps a LE should also be involved?
Digital TV has been around for a number of years already, and no doubt many, if not all, of your residents are already enjoying it, either with dedicated TV sets or “set top boxes”. The only change to come will be that the analog system is being shut down.
In most cases there should be no need to change anything within the building, as existing aerials and wiring will cope. A quick survey of your residents who are receiving digital should give an indication of any problems.
@Kangaroo said:
As you say, it’s subjective.In my subjective opinion, the screen you prefer would be “not in keeping with the rest of the building”.
To what extent can an OC/EC decide what IS in keeping if it is inside the lot?
If the building is not “finished and approved”, would any form of occupancy be allowed?
The exhaust system can be “tested” simply by holding a flattened handkerchief over the grill. If the hankie stays in place, it is working, if it falls to the ground, the system is not. If you can hear the fan running, there is a good chance of a blockage. There may be a filter in the ducting which needs cleaning, it should be accessible.
You could always consider one of those on ground fold up barriers that can be padlocked into place.
They might be a bit expensive to get installed, you might need OC approval to drill holes in the floor (but you could possibly claim the security exemption), and you have the inconvenience of having to get out of the car to lock/unlock it each time.
@RJSmith said:
I live in a big building, 300+ apartments, and the owner of each car space is issued with a clicker for that car park to let them in/out of the building. This limits ‘rouge parkers’ and quite successfully, but it also means you can’t have a spare clicker i.e. leave one in your work car or, in my case, give one to my mum who uses my second car space from time to time and one to my dad who also uses that same car space from time to time. Is my body corporate allowed to limit the number of clickers?Your “rogue parkers” just love big apartment blocks like yours. With a guaranteed high turnover of vehicle movements they simply wait a few minutes for a resident to open the door, and follow them in/out.
Most places would suggest if you have “visitors”, you should be there to meet them and you can let them in yourself.
Your father staying over when you are not there is not visiting, he is a temporary resident and should not have access to visitor parking.
Hi CBF
Not all remote controls work like that.
Many are small units like car remotes, which have electronic codes embedded to identify the particular user. They have to be programmed using a computer, so would have to be done with OC approval. The building’s security system probably keeps a record of every time you use it.
If you have two car spaces it is not unreasonable to expect an entitlement of two remote units.
I doubt that the electricity distributors would be deciding how to divvy up the consumption of whole blocks of units to individual units. If you get a bill, then you are paying for your own metered consumption. The OC pays for common property power.
Water is different, the OC usually pays for the entire water consumption of the plan, as their is usually only one meter for the property. Although individual units get hit with a “service fee”.
If the sticker can’t be easily removed, there might be issues of “malicious damage” being caused to the vehicle.
From the FRNSW (Fire & Rescue NSW) web site:
From 1 July 2013 the false alarm charge will increase to $1250.
In certain circumstances, such as for storms and other natural disasters, false alarms will not be charged if the alarm was beyond the control of the owner.
There are additional circumstances (leniencies) resulting in no charge, including:
One false alarm within a 60 day period will not be charged. Subsequent false alarms which occur within 60 days of the first alarm will be charged.
A 24 hour leniency period applies in which repeat false alarms will not be charged. Only the first alarm will be charged within the 24 hours. Multiple false alarms within a 24 hour period are considered a one off event giving the business owner or manager time to rectify their alarm system.
Billing of charges
Building owners or managers are responsible and accountable for the payment of false alarm charges resulting from unwanted false alarms. FRNSW invoices AFASPs (Automatic Fire Alarm Service Providers), they in turn invoice building owners or managers.
FRNSW is not involved where owners forward false alarm costs on to a third party, such as hotel guests when the activation resulted from normal occupant activities such as cooking and showering.
Queensland has a similar policy, and I suspect the other states do likewise.
Editor’s acronym whinge: I had no idea what FRNSW or AFASP meant and had to go and look them up. It’s a lot easier if posters spell out acronyms and abbreviations the first time they use them, however familiar they may be with them.
the body corporate through the EC installed a fire alarm system which was subsequently found to be inappropriate for some units. The result is that having a shower may set off an alarm. The fire brigade now charge for all false alarm callouts and the owner is expected to pay for this. My contention is that the fire alarms system is common property, installed by the body corporate and since it is inappropriate should either pay the cost of false fire alarms or install a different system
These should have been installed by a (hopefully) qualified contractor. If the detectors are inappropriate for the area being protected, perhaps this contractor needs to be called to account.
Who decided that the lot owner should pay the fine? The OC would be the “owner” of the system, and the fine should go to them. Wouldn’t it require a SBL to make a lot owner contribute to the fine?
If these alarms had been installed as a result of a council directive, I don’t think the OC can vote against it.