Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
Scotlandx
Addendum to my last reply yes I meant deregistered.
Scotlandx
Thanks for the information. I will keep it in mind when the by-law vote comes up.
Thanks for the information. Yes the by-law is being put forward at an EGM.
Great idea Arn. If you cannot stop them then make them pay more for the extra use of the facilities.
A warning on Airbnb. Last year we sold our 3 bad unit on Sydney Harbour. The online advertisement and pictures were posted in the morning and early that afternoon the agent went on line to check how they looked. He was shocked to see someone had copied the pictures and placed them in an Airbnb online advertisement. It took at least 24 hours to find the contact details for Airbnb and have them removed. What a scam. What would have happened if the agent hadn’t checked? Has anyone else been scammed like this?
You don’t need to have a metal strip on top of the glass provided the thickness of the glass is correct. You need to check with a glass balcony specialist to ensure you can have frameless in your situation. The specialists advised me the code was altered around 2007 to allow framless glass.
Lady Penelope
Thank you for your advice.
ANSWERS TO YOUR QUERIES
- Authorisation to seek legal Advice. It didn’t go to an EGM as they split up the legal advice into sub-topics so no costs would be over $3,000 so alleviating the need for a general meeting.
- By-law changes. They are proposed by-laws and will, I assume, be put up for approval at the same EGM as our renovation by-law. Question: If we obtain approval of our by-law at the same meeting as the general by-law changes are approved are we bound by the old by-law or the new?
CLAUSE RE COST IN OUR PROPOSED BY-LAW
Due to the ongoing saga of our renovations we have had to alter our by-law and the new by-law has this amended clause that we are wary of and would like your opinion.
This clause is common to all the special by-laws for the building but our wording is more stringent and onerous.
“The Owner must bear and pay the owners corporation’s costs, charges and expenses of and in relation to the preparation, adoption and registration of this by-law, including without limitation the costs of the strata managing agent, the costs of convening a general meeting, legal costs in advising the owners corporation and the costs of the provision to the owners corporation of the advice of a consulting engineer.”
As background, we were advised to use the OC’s lawyers “as they know what the OC’s requirements are in relation to by-laws”. Is the above clause leaving us vulnerable to open-ended charges that we have no knowledge of? You are correct that there is an element of vindictiveness and we feel we are being set up for big costs. In the OC”s lawyer’s covering communication accompanying our proposed by-law it was stated “As you know, I have prepared this by-law in my capacity as solicitor for the owners corporation.” In other words our by-law has been prepared by someone who is batting for the other side and the above clause seems to suggest we cover the cost of them advising the OC against us!
We are concerned that by accepting this clause we may be compromising our ability in relation to challenging/contesting any costs that are put upon us.
RENOVATION TIME LIMIT CLAUSE
In the first draft of our by-law the 5 months time limit to complete works was not mentioned. The new draft includes it. Are we within our rights to ask for it to be removed on the basis that it is part of the general by-laws we are required to comply with anyway. The new general by-law states that the five months can only be exceeded with the approval of the OC. We are concerned that by including this clause we are compromising our ability to challenge the reasonableness of this clause at NCAT and/or apply for an extension.
Dear Lady Penelope.
Since my last post (below) the SC have agreed to remove the storm water pipe in our unit (there was no easement put in place) however since we queried the five month time limit on renovations the SC have had their solicitor revise the clauses in the by-law and have upped the bond from $10,000 to $50,000 and the penalty from $1,000 per week to a maximum of $5,000 per week. The bond was previously for the purpose of repairing common property, cleaning etc but now has been dramatically increased just to cover inconvenience! The wording of the new clause is:
If the works are not completed within the timeframe determined in accordance with clause 18.8(q), the owners corporation may draw on the bond: at a rate (such rate to be determined by the strata committee, acting reasonably) of up to $5,000 per week for each week, or part thereof that completion of the works exceeds the timeframe determined in accordance with clause 18.8(q); and the amount of the bond to be drawn on under paragraph (a) will be determined by the strata committee as a pre-estimate of the damage sustained or likely to be sustained by the owners corporation, owners and occupiers having regard to the inconvenience, loss of amenity and interruption to the orderly functioning of the strata scheme caused by the continuation of the works beyond the stated time for completion.
18.8 (q) ensure that, subject to any extension of time required by reason of any supervening event or circumstance beyond your reasonable control, the works are completed within three (3) months of their commencement or such other period of time not exceeding five (5) months from their commencement as is determined by resolution of the strata committee, acting reasonably.
We have had both architect and builder advise the SC that they cannot complete the high quality refurbishment within the 5 months. The refurbishment is a total stripout and bespoke rebuild over 254sqm and there are many restrictions on access to the building (hours, small lift etc).
Do you think the new changes to the by-laws could be challenged at NCAT and is the draw down on the bond still a fine that will require NCAT to adjudicate? Should it be challenged before commencement of the work?
Lady Penelope. Thank you for your replies. They have been very helpful. At the AGM last week the make up of the SC changed for the better so the repressive by laws will be reviewed.
I have another problem with the same unit. After buying the property we discovered a storm water pipe has been installed INSIDE the master bedroom of our unit – it was hidden behind panelling in the top of the built-in cupboards and a lowered ceiling in the master ensuite so we didn’t see it during inspections and there was no mention of it in the strata report. Going through the meeting notes we only saw an innocuous reference to “pipe work” in our unit and it didn’t ring alarm bells.
From what we can gather the building had a plumbing emergency a couple of years ago – an internal pipe had rusted out and a lot of water was coming into a unit several floors below ours. The SC apparently came to an arrangement with the guardians of the 96 year old owner of the apartment to instal this pipe inside the Lot to get them out of trouble.
As soon as it came to our attention we sent a letter to the Strata Manager asking:
1)The legal basis for the pipe being in the unit. 2) To provide a copy of the agreement with the previous owner. 3) Why not installed on common property. 4) Is it temporary or permanent – if temporary when will it be removed 5) The insurance arrangements. 6) Access arrangements – assume building contractors would have to have 24/7 access to the apartment if the pipe failed or leaked. Presumably they would tear apart the bespoke joinery we have planned or are they expecting us to design our joinery to give them access!!!
We have received no response after three months and keep being told the SC is “seeking advice”. They have not provided a copy of an agreement with the previous owner – we suspect there isn’t one.
We have found in the OC records reference to a January 2014 Building Report which flagged the internal pipe problem recommending that an area of the roof be relevelled so the water drained to a new pipe on the outside of the building. We don’t know why this recommendation was not followed.
Do we have the right the request the removal of this pipe? What should we do?
Lady Penelope
Thank you for your response. There is a current by-law restricting renovations to 5 months but they wish to reword the by-law by “removing the 5 month allowance” and changing it to “not up to 5 months” (not sure what this means) and upping the bond from $10,000 to $50,000 for any renovation.
Another clause within this by law states “to ensure the orderly conduct of works the proposed timetable for which competes with other works in the complex they may impose restrictions on the time of works, access to lifts, car parking etc”. The SC interpretation of this is that no two units can be renovated at the same time under any circumstances. We have a unit block with 50 units in it, built in 1970 with many elderly residents whose units are in original condition. With the demographics rapidly changing there are going to be many renovations. Under this regime we could be looking at waiting over a year before they will allow us to start renovating a unit we cannot live in as it is in uninhabitable condition!
Can I pay the $10,000 bond in advance of having my plans approved to avoid the higher bond.
-
AuthorReplies