Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Pay this block’s Strata Committee Members? Not in a pink fit!
Volunteers work longer and harder because they are doing something they care about.
Paying our current Strata Committee would not help. It is a closed shop, contriving to keep membership within a select group of new first-time owners and to the exclusion of owners who look to the long-term life of the property as opposed to a quick and profitable resale price. This would not be such a problem except none of these revolving committee members make the effort to attend relevant courses recommended by Strata Community Association NSW (or the like) so are ineffective. They don’t pursue warranty claims for work poorly done or not done to the brief; have continually put off the commencement of pricey balcony balustrade compliance work recommended by Council in 2014 and readily agreed to by the then OC; have the OC pay for repairs to private modifications to common property because (to allow them the benefit of the doubt) they know no better; installed fans rather than pursue the pricier recommendations of an engineers’ report to prevent a serious damp problem at the source; and have allowed common property to deteriorate to the point the property in general has grown shabby on their watch (albeit with fresh dry new carpet).
Paying committee members only when they complete a job would not work either, because it may encourage a practice which currently sees jobs cherry-picked to pretty-up an area ahead of pricey (and so perpetually delayed) maintenance work to combat damp that common-sense (and expert advice) would dictate be done ahead of temporary ‘cosmetic’ cover-ups. Paint over and sell up seems to be the motto.
Perhaps paying the Strata Committee could work in a block well-managed, but in a dysfunctional block with sky-high levies, it feels counter-intuitive.
A friend who is went to the same SCA meeting where the suggestion to insert a Minor Renovations by-law was suggested, pointed out to me that my draft is too all-encompassing. “All minor renovations need a by-law?” is pretty much the spanner they put in my works. And they are quite right.
How do I differentiate between a major ‘minor’ renovation like ‘reconfiguring’ a wall by adding a doorway through a common property internal brick wall or moving plumbing pipes around inside those walls VERSUS changing a light switch.
Future generations of owners must be responsible for repairs and maintenance so that the expense does not fall by default on the OC. A current owner is not responsible for undocumented and untraceable modifications. Only owners who were around when the work was initially authorised may in future recall the timing. Minutes aren’t good enough without that living memory because the new OC has to know where to look, and as the lawyer at the SCA seminar pointed out, after 7 years, with the OC’s agreement (or can it be the SC’s decision?) documents may legally be culled; not so by-laws.
Can anyone help me with a suggestion on how to word a clause to differentiate between major ‘minor renovation’ versus minor ‘minor renovation’? It will go to a lawyer finally, but without this clause in the initial draft, is bound to be thrown out with the bathwater.
Among other things, the new Act lists minor renovations as ‘reconfiguring walls’.
“110 Minor renovations by owners
(3) Minor renovations include but are not limited to work for the purposes of the following:
(a) renovating a kitchen,
(b) changing recessed light fittings,
(c) installing or replacing wood or other hard floors,
(d) installing or replacing wiring or cabling or power or access points,
(e) work involving reconfiguring walls,
(f) any other work prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.“Jimmy T perhaps? I’ve heard you talk at SCA and you have a good turn of phrase.
Compile a list of how your SM has wasted or mismanaged OC money or business. Unless you already know the SM company’s lawyers or can find it by other means, make an appointment to look through your OC’s documents held in the SM’s office, as is the right of all owners (they may ask a fee for accommodating your search and that is their right, but unlikely . . . although with your SM’s past form . . ? ). Somewhere in that pile of documents may be the name of one of their lawyers. Without divulging either your own or Strata Property’s details or SM’s name, phone that lawyer. Ask for an estimate to prepare a submission to NCAT against your SM and mention you are looking for a law firm that will take no prisoners. If you are given any encouragement that you have a case, tell the lawyer you want to shop around and may call them back. Let the name of your SM drop by accident before you hang up. If you have a valid case, you may now just sit back and wait for the SM’s resignation. 😉
@Lady Penelope said:
Mr Wong – Â By-laws must not be unreasonable.If an apartment owner wants to keep their cat indoors 24/7 then there is absolutely no danger to wildlife. You are making an assumption that all cat owners are irresponsible.
Cats are one of the types of animals most suitable for keeping indoors in an apartment. To ban an owner from keeping a cat just because some owners permit their cats to roam is far too stringent in my opinion, and is therefore unreasonable.Â
Should all dogs be banned because some irresponsible dog owners permit their dogs to urinate and defecate on common property?Â
Pets are generally not permitted on common property. That includes cats and dogs. A breach notice can be issued to a pet’s owner if any pet is seen on common property.  Â
Thanks for pointing out my oversight Lady Penelope. Not all cat-owners are irresponsible, but there are those who are in denial and think it cruel to confine a cat to barracks. I agree about pets being wonderful companions and would never wish to deny people that pleasure. I had meant to ofter options, but erroneously repeated the same wording in both options. Option D was to allow cats but that they be kept within the four walls of the unit. Don’t know where that version got to, but if you can rephrase it for me, I’d be grateful. Perhaps just take out Option D altogether and let A, B and C stand and trust that people will begin to take this by-law more seriously.Â
It is generally accepted that cats can take care of themselves outdoors, so cats often wander anonymously after dark; dogs not so much.
Just occurred to me that you may not be familiar with Options A and B or did not follow my link. They give the OC the options to keep whatever may legally be kept as a pet. 🙂
Option A
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal on the lot, if the owner or occupier gives the owners corporation written notice that it is being kept on the lot.
(2) The notice must be given not later than 14 days after the animal commences to be kept on the lot.
(3) If an owner or occupier of a lot keeps an animal on the lot, the owner or occupier must:
(a) keep the animal within the lot, and
(b) supervise the animal when it is on the common property, and
(c) take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or
the common property that are soiled by the animal.Option B
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal on the lot or the common property with the written approval of the owners corporation.
(2) The owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal on a lot or the common property and must give an owner or occupier written reasons for any refusal to grant approval.
(3) If an owner or occupier of a lot keeps an animal on the lot, the owner or occupier must:
(a) keep the animal within the lot, and
(b) supervise the animal when it is on the common property, and
(c) take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or the common property that are soiled by the animal.
(4) An owner or occupier of a lot who keeps an assistance animal on the lot must, if required to do so by the owners corporation, provide evidence to the owners corporation demonstrating that the animal is an assistance animal as referred to in section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth.
Â
I thought about it too late to do a lot of good, but I wonder if strata schemes could be persuaded to include another option (or two) for their owners to consider for the KEEPING PETS by-law.
If you have no cats yet in the building it might be easily do-able, but either way, if you care about wildlife and the environment, I hope you’ll consider banning or confining cats within the four walls of a lot, a worthwhile battle.Â
Here’s some ammunition, but there’s plenty more like it on the internet.
Cats are efficient killers and well-fed domestic cats do it merely for the thrill of it.
Click on SHOW TRANSCRIPT of this Robin Williams broadcast to give you an idea of the problem.If cat owners claim their cat is not part of the problem, show them this video of a GPS tracker on a cat just like their own.
Where does your cat roam after dark? Check this out.I am no lawyer, but adding something like this to the options already on the Model By-laws  might at least start the conversation. Options A and B exist, with Option A the default by-law for schemes who don’t submit their own variation or choose Option B.
I’d be grateful for any help with the wording for my Options C and D
Option C
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep a reasonable animal (bar cats) on the lot or the common property with the written approval of the owners corporation.
(a) In this by-law, cats are not included or permitted. An owner or
occupier must not keep a cat in their lot or on common property.(2) The owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal (bar cats) on a lot or the common property and must give an owner or occupier written reasons for any refusal to grant approval.
(3) If an owner or occupier of a lot keeps an animal on the lot, the owner or occupier must:
(a) keep the animal within the lot, and
(b) supervise the animal when it is on the common property, and
(c) take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or the common property that are soiled by the animal.
(4) An owner or occupier of a lot who keeps an assistance animal on the lot must, if required to do so by the owners corporation, provide evidence to the owners corporation demonstrating that the animal is an assistance animal as referred to in section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth.
Option D
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal on the lot (bar cats) or the common property with the written approval of the owners corporation.
(a) In this by-law, cats are not included or permitted. An owner or
occupier must not keep a cat in their lot or on common property.(2) The owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal (bar cats) on a lot or the common property and must give an owner or occupier written reasons for any refusal to grant approval.
(3) If an owner or occupier of a lot keeps an animal on the lot, the owner or occupier must:
(a) keep the animal within the lot, and
(b) supervise the animal when it is on the common property, and
(c) take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or the common property that are soiled by the animal.
(4) An owner or occupier of a lot who keeps an assistance animal on the lot must, if required to do so by the owners corporation, provide evidence to the owners corporation demonstrating that the animal is an assistance animal as referred to in section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth.