1. Home

ccbaxter

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Replies
  • 04/11/2013 at 10:42 am in reply to: Room to move in strata law reform #20014
    ccbaxter
    Flatchatter

      I read the news story and the comment piece (both written by a certain Jimmy Thompon, if I’m not wrong).

      I’m glad all this is being looked at but where can I see the latest please? Doesn’t sound like it’s at all done’n’dusted, any further chances to contribute? Any possibility of posting a link?

      Pets are good, but I’m worried about the welfare of pets in apartments. We have an exotic cat residing opposite us and when its owner, a thirty-ish single girl who works long hours, the poor moggy meows for hours. It’s disturbing as it seems distressed, not so much because of the noise. Downstairs, there’s the cutest small dog and the the owner-couple not only work long hours but also go to the gym, running and cycling without Fido. He’s pretty well behaved and they have a dog walker for an hour every weekday (which must cost a bit) but the poor little fella must get awfully lonely.

      Must be comforting but seems self indulgent, having a pet in an apartment to me. If only they could talk. “Pleeesaaaassssseee don’t leave me alone today…”

      01/11/2013 at 12:29 pm in reply to: Motions & Resolutions #19982
      ccbaxter
      Flatchatter

        What state is this in please? I am assuming NSW but I see kiwipaul is in Bris Vegas. Hope I haven’t missed something, this is very relevant to my situation.

        20/10/2013 at 3:49 pm in reply to: How do we overturn an unjust By-Law from the Dark Ages? #19855
        ccbaxter
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          I also meant to answer a couple of the very helpful Roo’s questions:

          On the Strata Plan the area is just ‘open space’ as you describe it. There is nothing indicated there. In real life there are degraded, concrete, left and right wheel driveway things, for the 10 car spaces, broken and mucked up by tree roots etc. over time. Looks great, not, as you can imagine. At one stage the spaces were marked by signs linking them to the… err… exclusive users, but these are nearly all broken and haven’t been kept in good repair.

          The money to be spent, and it’s still not clear just how much as the powers that be are very tricky and cagey, will be about nine tenths on the car spaces and one tenth on gardens and landscaping. And I imagine new signs.

          Thanks again.

          20/10/2013 at 3:17 pm in reply to: How do we overturn an unjust By-Law from the Dark Ages? #19854
          ccbaxter
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Thanks everyone, the information and help here in this topic is really very  helpful and must have taken contributors lots of time. Is there a Strata Heaven? You’ll all end up there. (It’ll be better than Tax Law Heaven.)

            16/10/2013 at 10:27 am in reply to: Is mediation really necessary? #19811
            ccbaxter
            Flatchatter
            Chat-starter

              Perhaps I was naively  assuming that, once the CTTT sees this patently unfair, ill-conceived and ancient By-Law which demonstrably breaks several rules, and the situation we’re in, they’d have no hesitation in throwing it out.

              What will happen at mediation? Will someone form our strata defend this on a technicality such as a ‘statute of limitations’? I can’t find anything about that in the Act, and the OFT have always gone straight to the Act in a couple of other instances where I’ve spoken to them.

              I remind myself the status quo only needs to be disturbed because fifty grand plus of OC money is going to be spent, greatly benefiting a third of owners greatly benefiting already.

              Thanks again for all the input, everyone, it’s greatly appreciated!

               

              15/10/2013 at 2:31 pm in reply to: Is mediation really necessary? #19806
              ccbaxter
              Flatchatter
              Chat-starter

                I think I just have to give it a go at the CTTT for the princely sum of $78 without OFT mediation which I think would be a waste of time and another $78.

                I can certainly provide half a dozen separate pieces of correspondence (emails and a more formal letter) to which I have received no reply or reaction, where I pointedly suggest the Exclusive Use By-Law needs to be examined before Owners Corporation funds are spent on this fifty grand project benefiting Exclusive Users’ parking spaces. 

                I’ve considered seeking the appointment of a manager too, since the Executive Committee and Strata Manager have handled this whole thing lazily, ineptly and disingenuously. (And many other matters.) But I’ve held off since the Chairman quietly mentioned they will shortly try to find a new Strata Manager. They blame each other. There have been two General Meetings about this landscaping project. First was the AGM where the matter was deferred. Then a purpose-convened (if that’s acceptable language) GM where it also failed. The whole thing’s a stuff-up, however I digress.

                14/10/2013 at 4:22 pm in reply to: Removing Office Bearers #19789
                ccbaxter
                Flatchatter

                  Peta, apply for mediation against the Owners Corporation immediately through the strata section of the NSW Office of Fair Trading mentioning Section 162 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act which covers the compulsory appointment of a strata managing agent because the management structure of your strata “is not functioning, or is not functioning satisfactorily”. They are the words in the Act. You have to try for mediation first, then you can seek an Adjudication for this if mediation isn’t successful. Start now. Get the form and $78 in the mail. You’ll feel better and the Executive Committee and Strata Manager will hear about it soon enough. Ask your concerned neighbours to join you or even chip in.

                  14/10/2013 at 10:15 am in reply to: How do we overturn an unjust By-Law from the Dark Ages? #19780
                  ccbaxter
                  Flatchatter
                  Chat-starter
                    Subsequent to my most recent post about our old Exclusive Use By-Law, I dug out my old Strata Title Inspection Report done in 1994 [by O’Connors, delete if necessary]. It doesn’t just alert my wife and I to this By-Law suggesting it might be dodgy, the report says the Strata Titles Act 1973 requires registration within two years and additionally refers us to Section 58(7) of the Act which I’ll check on later.

                     

                    Also I notice, while this By-Law is always referred to as ‘Special’ By-Law 28 in conversation round here, the official print-out of the By-Law, made in 1975 remember, has no mention of ‘special’ anywhere at all and just says “resolution duly passed”.

                     

                    Gosh you guys are good! Thanks everyone. And this just goes to show how worthwhile a professional Strata Title Inspection Report can be.

                     

                     
                    13/10/2013 at 9:15 am in reply to: How do we overturn an unjust By-Law from the Dark Ages? #19777
                    ccbaxter
                    Flatchatter
                    Chat-starter

                      That is comforting thank you. So, the CTTT can simply throw out a By-Law such as this? That would be good, but controversial.

                      I was also wondering about the bit in the By-Law which says “The proprietors for the time being of each lot…”, wondering if that implies when a lot is sold or let, the By-Law is no longer valid.

                      I didn’t mention currently half the ten units with spaces are let and half owned. Also some sub-letting of these spaces occurs for cash which is probably against the ‘rules’.

                      13/09/2013 at 1:38 pm in reply to: Should I be worried? #19440
                      ccbaxter
                      Flatchatter

                        I assume JimmyT is talking about LukeR’s post about the non-approved alterations to a fire rated ceiling when he says: “I reckon a smart lawyer would, on appeal, have argued that the current owner, acting in good faith, could not have known that the ceiling was non-compliant whereas the Owners Corp had a statutory duty to make sure that it was compliant.”

                        I reckon a ‘smart lawyer’ when he was doing the conveyancing would have insisted on the checks everyone should have done, but apparently only 23% of people actually do, which should have spotted the unapproved and DANGEROUS ceiling alterations.

                        And the Owners Corporation’s ‘smart lawyer’, should they need one, will get that Notice to Comply straight to the owner, whoever it is at the time, complied with and have the unapproved, non-fireproof, dangerous ceiling which probably voids everyone’s insurance… fixed pronto.

                        13/09/2013 at 11:27 am in reply to: Duty to Repair Common Property – The Law has Changed!! #19438
                        ccbaxter
                        Flatchatter

                          I just read PMC2’s very good post on this again and renewed my curiosity as to why the two expert strata lawyers did PR releases on this. Maybe to stir things up. I really think they should put all their cards on the table here.Wink

                          13/09/2013 at 7:35 am in reply to: Duty to Repair Common Property – The Law has Changed!! #19431
                          ccbaxter
                          Flatchatter

                            So the law ‘hasn’t really changed!!’ And law isn’t an exact science anyway.

                            12/09/2013 at 6:31 pm in reply to: Duty to Repair Common Property – The Law has Changed!! #19426
                            ccbaxter
                            Flatchatter

                              I’m not a lawyer but…

                              … it’s time for the bush lawyering to stop and the real lawyers who issued the PR releases to weigh in please.

                              Saying it’s “settled law” as JimmyT puts it (whatever that means) and in quotes means Sweet Fanny Adams a ‘lawyer’ mate told me this afternoon.

                              11/09/2013 at 3:36 pm in reply to: Duty to Repair Common Property – The Law has Changed!! #19415
                              ccbaxter
                              Flatchatter

                                Perhaps JimmyT could ask the lawyers who issued the press releases mentioned here to explain things a little further. Maybe a couple of more normal, hypothetical situations could be put to them.

                                10/09/2013 at 5:57 pm in reply to: Duty to Repair Common Property – The Law has Changed!! #19405
                                ccbaxter
                                Flatchatter

                                  I didn’t think I was being vehement. Thanks for taking the time to explain further.

                                • Author
                                  Replies
                                Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 56 total)
                                1 2 3 4