Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
Jimmy, I can’t find any reference to section 282(2) of the act anywhere. Is this the right reference? If so.could you be more specific?
Thanks for the good advice, Jimmy. The bylaw issue seems fairly straightforward, but the fact that the BC refused to allow an inspection of the air conditioning in the common property roof space when a genuine concern about fire safety was raised seems to me to be also a major derilicton of their duty of care for owners and also for the proper maintenance of the building.
I assume that I will have to also add this to the list of matters taken to the Tribunal? Do I take action against the 2 separate owners or against the Body Corporate?
Also I wonder if the issue of fire rated ceilings and air conditioning has come up as a concern in other buildings . Apparently the double gyprock ceiling was a common way to fire rate and compartmentalise a top floor apartment to contain the spread of fire to iinside the apartment.
In our 40 year old building the council development consent specified this. Cutting holes in the ceiling to fit diffusers for air outlets would appear to compromise the fire rating if no other fire stopping measures are taken.
Thanks Jimmy, but just to complicate matters, I have just seen the Development Application held by our local council and on it 3 visitor parking spaces are specified and marked on the approval !So which takes precedent? The registered strata plan held by LAND and PROPERTY and signed off by council or the DA held by council showing something different. Do our bylaws govern what is contained in the registered strata plan only or can can a violation of a parking bylaw be referred to as a breach of councils DA. And therefore be referred to council?
For example , if an owner had written permission to park occasionally on common property and they parked in a marked visitors space , could they argue they were not in breach of the visitor parking bylaw as they had permission to park on common property as represented in the strata plan?
I know this sounds hypothetical but in our building a similar situation is aging some legs!
situation has legs!
@Lady Penelope said:
In general, if the neighbour’s balcony forms part of their Lot, or part of their Exclusive Use area, then the ‘box’ of air space within the boundary of the balcony (including the vertical space from the floor of the balcony up to the base of the floor above) also forms part of the Lot.As such, the owner and/or occupant of the Lot with the balcony can pretty much fill that ‘box’ of air space with with whatever they wish to fill it with.
The only caveat is that the objects placed within the ‘box’ of air space must not offend any existing by-laws such as ‘BBQs’ (as JT has mentioned) and/or ‘Appearance of a Lot’.
If BBQs are permitted then your best bet would be to ask that the neighbour move the BBQ to another part of their balcony. Maybe offer them an inducement, such as a bottle of wine! I don’t believe that you would achieve much by taking this matter to OFT.
Thanks Jimmy and Lady P. To clarity, barbecues are permitted and I have no objection to them being on a balcony. My objection in this case is that this is a deliberate attempt to deny me a valuable view as evidenced by their leaving the barbecue lid up all day. We have a standard bylaw referring to preventing doing anything that prevents another owner from enjoying their lot and I believe the neighbors actions do this.
I forgot to mention, Peter C that we are in NSW and have the standard by law stating parking allowed on common property only with written permission etc. and that this permission is used only on the odd occasion, usually overnight and not as a regular occurrence. A generous concession by other owners in our 6 unit block
Thanks, Jimmy, for your reply in your Xmas haze! I would be interested to hear if there is actual legislation dealing with use of a garage.
One vote out of six would not stop a special resolution here so it is a possibility.
The offending bushes are not trees but rather tall leafy plants in pots, so mounting a case based on their weight would not work.
The basic issue is, while the bushes are not an eyesore from the street and therefore perfectly ok by our existing bylaws, does that automatically give the owner of them the right to deliberately block another’s view?
Just to clarify a few points that have been raised. The splashback shattered overnight, for no identifiable reason. No accident, no carelessness, no contact with saucepans etc. the repairers said it could have occurred from movement in the building or a defective glass panel, but they could not identify an exact cause.
If it is accepted that the glass was common property under the definition of ” tiles affixed to a boundary wall at the time of registration of the strata plan ” then what would be the response to paying for it if there was no insurance claim, say because the cost would have been small and not worth submitting one? Should an owner then be required to pay for a repair to common property, even if it serves a purpose within a lot? And, by the way, I would have quite happily paid this excess if I had been in any way responsible
The glass splashback was fixed to an external wall and surrounded my kitchen window above the sink. The insurance claim was submitted by the SM under Owners corporation insurance, not my contents insurance. Thanks for the comments. I would have thought it was a simple case of common property: owners corporation pays, including the excess.
-
AuthorReplies