Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It was suggested below that the OC could implement a By-Law imposing a limit on the maximum number of residents. Unfortunately (in the case of tenants) that would contravene Sect. 49 of the Act as it represents a restriction on the lease.
It is an interesting situation though. If such a By-Law was passed it would only apply to owners, not tenants, thanks to Sect. 49.
Methinks the current Government review of the Act needs to look at the situation. Although with the current push for higher and higher housing density maybe they would consider it acceptable for Australia to sink to third-world standards and have ten people sleeping in each bedroom…
Based on my research electronic meters (such as one of those I mentioned) work by sensing a magnetic pulse every time the internal impeller rotates. Assuming that they do actually sense the pulse then they will be as accurate as a mechanical meter.
That just leaves the radio transmission of the stored data, which these days is virtually foolproof, with various types of error detection and correction.
They are mostly designed to be read once a year and generally work by having a “read date” stored in them when they are initialised. They accumulate the data from that date until the same date the following year. The stored data is then read on or after that date.
The local water authority is unlikely to do such readings. It would be up to the Owners Corporation.
Note that installation of the meters need not be optional. The incoming water pipe and tap is common property. The OC is completely within its rights to mandate the installation of such a meter by way of a Special Resolution, under Sect. 65A of the Act.
The only possible problem would be that an owner could remove the meter and install a tap for part of the year. In the case of radio meters it would be easy to detect via regular checks, which would reveal that the reading had not changed over a period of time. They may also have built-in tamper detection.
Doing that would unfortunately also breach Sect. 49 of the Act, which makes it illegal to “restrict the devolution of a lot or a transfer, lease, mortgage, or other dealing relating to a lot”.
Refusing to give a separate key to each tenant of a lot is clearly such a restriction as it effectively prevents the lease from happening.
It is possible to get retro-fit water meters for individual units that simply replace the existing main tap. You don’t even need a plumber to install them.
There are even models with remote radio reading of the meters.
Here are a couple of examples of basic models:
https://www.zenner.com/products_fittings_water-meters.html
(See “Valve type MC”)
Sorry, slight correction to that. Under Section 81 of the Act permanent floor coverings such as a floating floor form part of the “Building” and come under the OC’s building insurance policy.
Whether the actual cause of the water damage is covered by the OC’s insurance policy is another matter that would have to be determined.
If only one owner turned up and one other owner voted by proxy then the meeting could not be held as there was not a quorum (2/9 is less than 25%) hence the motion could not even be considered.
Write a letter to the manager requesting that he comply with Section 62 of the Act (all common property must be maintained in a good state of repair.)
Point out that the areas in question are not in a good state of repair and ask for a date that they will be rectified.
If he does not agree, lodge a complaint with the CTTT. The first thing they do is order mediation, so it brings the matter to a head. The mediator (who only comes in after you have tried to reach agreement on your own) will tell the manager in no uncertain terms that he has no choice but to comply with the Act. It is therefore very unlikely to go to a full hearing.
You can do the work on 2/3 vote assuming you have expenditure approval to that amount.
To keep peace in the building though it would be wise to keep other owners advised of your plans and to include them in the decision making, without unduly delaying the project.
Once you select the carpet for example, try to get a sample and put it on display. Tell them that if anyone objects, then THEY have to go out (with say 7 days) and find an suitable alternative. (That generally avoids any objections.)
If a majority of owners object to the expenditure then they can compel the OC to recover the costs from the owner. They simply call an extraordinary meeting and pass a motion that the costs be recovered. If less than half the owners object then such is democracy.
Unfortunately you have to claim damage to your property on your own contents insurance. See https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/Tenants_and_home_owners/Strata_schemes/Repairs_and_maintenance.html
The floating floor may or may not be your property. It depends on whether it was built as part of the original building or whether you or a previous owner added it.
If it is original then the OC must repair it under Sect. 62 of the Act. If it was added later then it is yours and you have to claim it on your insurance.
Under the circumstances you may be able to ask the OC to cover your insurance excess.
An OC cannot legally prevent an owner from leasing their lot or lots to more than one person and any By-law that attempts to do so is invalid by virtue of Sect. 49 of the Act, as has been pointed out.
In the absence of any Local Government regulation, it follows therefore that an owner can rent out a garage to one person and the unit to another person.
As the Chairman and Secretary of an OC I don’t particularly like the situation due to the security aspect, but that is the law. No good going to the CTTT. They cannot override the Act.