Strata Laws: Online Consultation – CLOSED
We would like to thank everyone who participated in the online consultation on Strata Law reform. We had an amazing response and your comments have been included in a report which was presented to the NSW Government in May 2012. While you are no longer able to comment on the consultation questions, we invite you to read the submissions which will remain on the site as a record. If you would like to receive updates on Strata Reform, please contact us at strata@openforum.com.au. Thanks again for your support.
Read about the launch of the report.
Download the Strata Laws Online Consultation Report (pdf 5MB).
August 2012 update from Minister Roberts.
February 2013 update from Minister Roberts.
NSW FAIR TRADING RELEASES SECOND PHASE STRATA DISCUSSION PAPER.
PARTICIPATE IN FAIR TRADING STRATA SURVEY (now closed).
Strata and Community Title Law Reform Position Paper
====
The New South Wales Government plans to commence a review of the State’s strata and community title laws in 2012, which may include significant amendments to the existing legislation. To support this reform, public policy think-tank Global Access Partners (GAP) is hosting an online community consultation on Open Forum to give individuals and businesses affected by the reforms an opportunity to voice their opinions, share their experiences, raise specific issues or concerns and suggest possible solutions. We invite your comments on the following questions:
Q2. Can you see any future issues that need to be addressed in the legislation?
Q3. How could the management of strata and community schemes be improved?
Q4. Are there any changes needed to the way disputes in strata and community schemes are resolved?
The consultation is open to the general public as well as members of the strata community, including owners, tenants, strata agents, developers, surveyors, valuers, real estate agents, lawyers and academics who have experience and understanding of the current legislation, or specialist knowledge of the strata industry. Larger organisations and key stakeholder bodies are also invited to contribute.
Contributions close 29 February 2012.
RELATED LINKS
- Legislation: Strata and community schemes
- Strata and Community Scheme Laws: Making NSW number one again – by The Hon Anthony Roberts
- Have your say on Strata and Community Scheme Laws – by The Hon Greg Pearce
- NSW Fair Trading: What more could we do to help strata and community schemes? – by Rod Stowe
- 50 years of strata title in NSW – by Des Mooney
- Strata law reform: there's no easy fix – by Michael Coutts-Trotter
- Pets in strata – recognising benefits and balance – by Susie Willis
- Mission Statements for strata plans – by Jimmy Thomson
- Strata reform to recognise lifestyle changes – by Tim McKibbin
- Turn your strata thinking forwards before making changes – by Francesco Andreone
- Smoke-free guide clears the air for strata dwellers – by Anne Jones
- Unlocking land for urban renewal – by Stephen Albin
- Recommendations for strata law reform – by Clover Moore
- Importance of creating reasonable by-laws – by Cathy Sherry
- Union calls for greater say from tenants on strata laws – by Chris Martin
- Rethinking strata reform – by strataman
- Feedback vital for strata regulatory reform – by The Hon Anthony Roberts
-
Have your say on Strata Law reforms – by Suresh Manickam
-
Noticeboard Not Enough – Keeping Owners Informed – by Natalie Fitzgerald
-
Better solutions for dispute resolution – by Kay Ransome
-
Support needed to encourage independent living – by Waldemar Niemotko
-
Not seeing the (strata) woods for the trees – by Francesco Andreone
-
Wholesale review of community titles legislation overdue – by Phillippa Russell
-
Ability to terminate strata schemes key for growth– by Chris Johnson
-
Management changes missing from strata legislation – by Colin Grace
-
Controlling smoke drift in apartments: A need for greater regulation? – by Dr Andrew Penman
-
PICA Group of Companies submission – by Greg Freeman
-
Dynamic Property Services submission– by Karen Belcher
-
Planning Institute of Australia (NSW Division) submission – by Greg Woodhams
-
Kelly Partners submission – by Peter Dawkins
-
The Law Society of NSW – Property Law Committee submission– by Justin Dowd
-
Retirement Villages Residents Assocation submission – by Malcolm McKenzie
-
Makinson & d'Apice Lawyers – by Suzie Broome & Beverley Hoskinson-Green
-
JBW Surveyors submission– by Wayne Diver-Tuck
-
The Owners Corporation Network (Part 1)- by Ray Dowsett
-
The Owners Corporation Network (Part 2)- by Ray Dowsett
Open Forum is an interactive policy discussion website hosted and moderated by Global Access Partners (GAP).
196 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mark m
December 23, 2011 at 4:21 am
Strata Scheme Termination
There are a significant number of apartment buildings in NSW that were designed 20 to 40 years ago. Many of these buildings were poorly designed. The buildings I am referring to do not relate to their surroundings, they look dreadful & impact in a very negative way on the neighbourhoods which they sit within. These buildings have poor aesthetic & spacial planning and have lost relevance when compared to the apartment designs of today.
When these buildings were designed, Aparment living was consdiered to be a stepping stone into a home. Times have changed. There is now widespread acceptance by ‘Empty Nesters’ that apartment living is a very attractive proposition. Many of these older buildings have been poorly maintained. Many more of these buildings sit on large parcels of land that are zoned to accomodate higher density buildings.
It is time for some of these buildings to be removed & replaced with buildings that are relevant for todays society. Well designed apartment buildings positively impact on suburbs, better utilise the limited land resorces we have & provide broader housing choice for the community.
Currently all Owners in a Strata Scheme must consent to the termination of the Scheme. This means that in say a building with 12 owners, 11 owners may want to sell to a Developer, but one owner doesn’t. That one owner prevents the building from being redeveloped. This has got to change!
I believe that if 80% of the Onwers in a Strata Scheme vote to terminate the scheme then the motion must be carried. This change to the Strata Laws will immdediatley allow the replacement of some of our states most unsightly buildings with buildings that better utilise the limited amount of land we have, in areas with appropriatley zoned land. Our communities will benefit in that broader housing choices will be created.
merylyn offord
January 24, 2012 at 1:38 am
sale of old buildings
We own a unit in Cronulla. It is a 60 yr old building with many serious maintenance problems that would require more than $100 000 from each of the 12 units to remedy. We have no savings in the sinking fund. Only in recent years has forward planning for Body Corp expenses and putting aside a suitable sinking fund been able to be enforced in Strata Law. Because of this there are very many old buildings in this position.
The solution for us is to sell to a developer who is interested is buying at a good price but one owner doesn’t want to sell. We can’t force this owner to sell under the present law. This means all others will lose considerable amounts as the units are in such a poor state that sale to anyone else is improbable even at greatly reduced market value.
There is legal provision to force owners to pay for necessary maintenance when the majority agrees.
This needs to be extended to allow the majority of a Body Corporate to have the legal right to sell the whole building in such situations.
Fernanda19
February 4, 2012 at 12:07 am
Amendment to the Strata Legislation
The following are my main concerns about the existing strata community scheme laws.
I believe there should be more transparency and accountability on Strata i.e.
Proxies
The person should make it very clear in writing what issues the person is voting for, and it should be recorded on the minutes the way the person voted, so that it would be more difficult for the person holding the proxy to use it to his/her advantage.
Funds records
The Strata Manager or the Treasurer should provide the financial records of the Strata to all its members every three months i.e. a copy of the bank’s statement where it shows all the transactions made by the Strata.
I believe that instead of having two funds, sinking and administration fund, it should be only one fund. The Administration fund should have a surplus, for example $500 or $1000 per lot to be able to pay for emergency repairs, for example sewerage repairs or repair of the roof as suggested by Clover Moore. The owners’corporation during their AGM should prioritise items that require fixing and set a special levy to do it and record it in the meeting minutes so if in the meantime there is a purchaser he/she can negotiate with the seller and deduct the amount of the due repairs (special levy).
If there is a CTTT order for a Compulsory Strata Manager, the CTTT should specify the duration of the order plus the kind of work that needs to be carried out. The Compulsory Strata Manager should provide at least two quotes for the specified work. The CTTT, or a new Agency, should be consistent in its rulings and it should be published so the public have an understanding of their obligations so there is one law to all no matter what.
I also believe that the new fire regulation is another regulation that will increase strata levies without showing value for money. Strata levies are increasing at a higher rate than the cost of living so the government should only regulate on matters that makes sense and does not increase the cost of living.
The building can have the most expensive equipment to extinguish a fire but if the people living in it do not have the knowledge or have the strength to use it, it is a false sense of security. I also believe that the government should remind people of how to avoid a fire.
The EC members and the Strata Managers should not waste money on unnecessary repairs or that the person they contracted to do the repairs does it properly. When the strata manager puts his/her business for tender it should be a flat fee and have it in black and white so the Owners Corporation know have much they will be paying and not be surprised with extra fees. Our strata levies after our EC members decided to appoint a strata manager in June 2010 will be increased by 100% by March 2012 and the building is not looking any better.
Finally, I have a friend who advised me not to buy a unit built after the change of the State Government policy of developers paying for private certifiers. When everyone talks about ageing buildings they should look at the new ones. I believe that the old buildings are stronger than the new buildings and have better noise insulation than the new buildings. We deserve better built buildings if Sydney does not want to be called the “Whispering City”. I agree with Jimmy Thompson that people should know what kind of dwelling they are buying.
Amazed
December 30, 2011 at 7:35 am
Proxy Farming
I cannot agree more with Sam Kharman about ‘proxy farming’. I live in a complex of 30 units and most residents (owners & tenants) are bullied by the secretary of the body corporate. A good number of owners are timid, lazy, non-English speaking, or have investment properties that just provide income, so don’t care about the day-to-day problems we residential owners encounter.
The secretary ‘proxy farms’ each year, either bullying owners into giving him their proxy or giving newcomers his version of past events, most of which isn’t true. Other owners have tried to form committees in recent years, in order to do their share, but because of this guy’s vitriolic ‘newsletters’ defaming them, they have given up. Yes, he writes his own ‘newsletters’ and uses the facade of some other building on the letterhead. Previously he plagiarised the logo of some organisation to encourage NES residents that his documents were ‘official’. As a result, no-one volunteers to work with this person on the committee now, therefore he has total control of the strata plan. He intimidates the single women in the complex, and they hand over their proxies just to get rid of him.
Even more disturbing is that this person now thinks he can do what he likes around the complex, without going to the owners corporation for approval. He coerced the owners corporation into using the latest strata management company (we’ve had 3 in 3 years), but sacked them recently because they tried to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the Act, not according to what he wanted them to do. An owner must pay $72 to appeal to the Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT), whereas this guy’s fee is paid out of owners corporation funds. During a recent period of time when he wasn’t the secretary, he was a pensioner, and was a vexatious litigant at the CTTT because his fee was only $5 each application.
Limiting the number of proxy votes each owner can hold at general meetings of the owners corporation would stop all this nonsense. It would allow other owners the opportunity to become involved in running their committee, and would remove the power this guy uses to intimidate, bully and harass residents in the complex. It would allow the proper democratic process of ‘free’ and ‘fair’ elections to take place, and encourage owners to be responsible for their properties.
Richard Holloway
January 10, 2012 at 12:11 am
Proxy Farming
I understand the problem of proxy gathering. The difficulity is that in many instances without proxies the meeting will be adjourned due to the lack of a quorum and additional costs are incurred by owners.
An alternatively method regarding proxies is that proxy votes per person be limited but all proxies be used to gain a quorum at a meeting.
billen ben
January 24, 2012 at 10:02 am
what is a quorum
As you would be aware a quorum is about having a certain number of people (or entitlement) who are entitled to vote on a particular motion.
So lets say we count proxies for the purpose of a quorum but only allow a proxy limited voting process …. do we really have a quorum of people (or entitlement) voting. What you suggests redefines a quorum to an even lesser amount that 25%.
At present the numbers that represent a quorum is trivial relative to the 95% participation rate that comes from mandatory voting. The sugestion to count proxies inorder to have a quorum but not to count them all in a proxy limited vote just reduces the poor excuse for a democracy that strata is.
Reading the many posts on this forum about proxies it seems clear people want a limit on proxies. It also seems these people are targeting specific people in specific cases – is there real benifit for the whole strata living community or is it just a simplistic solution to a problem in a small percentage of strata plans?
For me the solution to proxies is a no brainer – get rid of proxies in all but extreme cases by requiring manadatory voting in person or in writing.
Limiting proxies does not make the proxy giver more motivated to participate in person.
Nigel Stewart
February 5, 2012 at 9:05 pm
What is a quorum?
Hi Billen Ben,
I currently have an application in the CTTT that asks this question.
Well, I have sought orders that will require the Adjudicator to ask himself/herself the question? Can an unfinancial member form part of a quorum?
The interesting question is in a two unit strata scheme (or any strata scheme where a significant number of owners are not financial)where a meeting in adjourned because of a lack of a quorum on the basis that unfinancial members cannot form part of that quorum.
An adjourned meeting when it is resumed is considered the same meeting or the ‘one meeting’. And as it is one meeting no member who was unfinancial at the commencement of the original meeting can pay the outstanding amount to make themselves financial at the resumed meeting. Additionally no new proxies are permitted after the commencement of the original meeting.
Although the Act does not disqualify an unfinancial member from forming part of a quorum many experts interpret the provisions that disqualify the vote of an unfinancial member to be a disqualification from the quorum.
If an unfinancial member who is present at the original meeting is not able to form part of a quorum and the meeting is adjourned due to a lack of a quorum then what is the purpose of that adjournment when they have no opportunity to pay the outstanding amount before the meeting is resumed?
Note:- If the oustanding amount is paid after the commencement of the original meeting it has no effect because it was paid after the meeting commenced.
Nigel
Heath Worker
February 5, 2012 at 10:11 pm
PROXY FARMING IS ALIVE AND WELL
Proxy Farming is alive and well in Port Macquarie! In fact wherever the holder of management rights is also an owner this will be the case in any residential and holiday let building. Why, because the owners of holiday units are beholden to the Manager to maximise their investment return and accordingly give their proxy to the Manager under that veil of duress. In our situation the Manager gathers at least 50% of the unit holders proxies and with that overwhelming majority determines every decision made at OC as well as at EC. Those who attend OC meetings do so out of interest only because their votes are ineffective as one person already has control. These decisions include Sinking Fund contributions and the like, EC membership, caretaker contracts, building maintenance, etc. This is democracy at work, but laws should prevent such autocratic power from being pursued or achieved. My only suggestion is to either limit the number of proxies that an owner can hold (as suggested by others), or the more democratic process would be to require those owners who cannot attend meetings to issue proxy votes indicating their ‘for’or ágainst’ status for each particluar motion, to the Strata Manager. Regrettably the latter option can also be rorted by unscrupulous Letting Managers. For one person to have the power to appoint friends or family members to positions or award them with lucrative contracts is just not the Australian way! Finally, I would support a change to the laws that specifically exclude proxy voters from being counted toward quorum numbers.
billen ben
January 24, 2012 at 9:37 am
mandatory voting
mandatory voting either in person or in writing solves your proxy problem.
i keep reading about proxy farmers and it sems that people feel limiting proxies is the solution. It is a simplistic solution that has problems attached to it and has way around it, next thing people will be asking for is a limit on block/group voting because the individual proxy farmer turns into a small "co-op" of like minded people.
Mandatory voting in person or in writing has many benifits and is a much better way to kill off the proxy farmer.
I really think limiting proxies is a very limited view when so much more could be achieved.
Ingrid Jackson
January 27, 2012 at 8:00 am
VOTING PAPERS
is present at the meeting personally, by proxy or by written or electronic voting paper. But a single owner can only hold up to 3 proxies (depending on size of strata scheme of course). The outcome is that the quorum is generally achieved. Voting is not mandatory. If quorum is not achieved at a General Meeting, the meeting is simply postponed by one week at which time, even if quorum is not achieved, as long as Chairperson or Strata Manager delegated as chairperson is there, those attending form a quorum and the votes are counted.
sfoots
February 2, 2012 at 1:39 am
Proxy farming
The building where I own a unit also has the problem of a bullying secretary. She is also the building representative so everything goes through her. She decides if she will pass the information into the other committee members or not. Prior to an AGM or EGM, she will bully other owners into agreeing with her to procure their vote in her favour. If someone is doing something that she doesn’t agree with, she will bang on their door and abuse them.
The current committee consists of her and 2 owners who do not live in the building, so she has full rein to do whatever she wants. Any complaints made to the Strata Manager about problems in the building are not dealt with but passed to the secretary, who will only take action if she agrees with the idea. Otherwise the problem is left unresolved. What is the next step, the tribunal which incurs a cost to the owner?
Whenever we have an inspection on the building where some residents cannot be present, she will take their keys to allow access to their property. I have seen her go through someone’s personal property in their garage while she had access to do this!
There needs to be a way to prevent the situation where one person in the block dominates over all the decisions.
Some suggestions:
1. Limit the term that a person can serve on the committee to one year. This will ensure that all owners really do have a say in what happens in the building.
2. All committee members must be copied on all correspondence – no exceptions.
3. Introduce a form of mediation that involves other owners, facilitated by the Managing Agent, so that issues can be resolved without the inconvenience and cost incurred by escalating it to the tribunal.
fineline
January 1, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Strata rental tenants
Sir/Madam,
I believe that all strata occupants whether they be tenants renting or owner occupieers of strata units, be invited to attend all meetings not only to bring everyone up to date on there obligations to each other when living in a strata unit complex, but for each to be able to discuss there concerns and have feedback provided, from the many different and varied sources of knowledge, experience and interest of residents and stakeholders. This would have the effect of eliminating the disputes that arise when people are not adequately informed of there obligation to each other when living in strata unit complex. Units that are rented by real estate agents on behalf of strata unit owners, who rarely attend body corporate meetings, whose interest lies mainly in financial gain, fail to provide rentees of by laws in place, or what areas are common property, and what are not, and by inviting rental tenants to attend meetings, might have the effect of making people feel included and members of a complex that values input from everyone, thereby reducing the problems associated with strata disputes
stratachic
January 5, 2012 at 4:40 am
Strata By-Laws and the CTTT & The Minister
For Strata complexes to run efficiently and equitably for the good of all I would suggest that the CTTT be forced to uphold the by-laws and for the public servants who sit on these boards to have to uphold the by-laws and make penalties apply where there are breaches..
I have been told by Strata Managers that its a lot of time and effort to take a breach to the CTTT and then quite often have the adjudicator ignore the by_laws and rule in favour of the offender..
The Strata By_laws are for the most part sensible rules to keep the complexes neat clean and tidy and maintained with everyone treated the same. It only takes One resident to breach by-laws with misuse of the common property, with rubbish, a car, a garbage can and the whole place can be turned into a slum… The CTTT was formed to enforce the by-laws that the Strata Plans have in place, Not to become judge and jury and rewrite the rules… If Owners want a rule change its up to them to vote on it !! Its not for the public servants on the CTTT to change !!!!
bjb
January 25, 2012 at 3:04 am
Enforcement of by-laws
This accords with our experience. Our committee is reluctant to proceed against repeated parking offenders because our experience is that the CTTT presumes everything should be settled by compromise and mediation. If there are by-laws for the benefit of all residents, and which most residents obey, but which some flout flagrantly to the detriment of their fellow residents, why should it not be a simple process to enforce compliance or punish non-compliance? The suggestion that the executive be able to issue simply enforceable fines after a warning is worth serious consideration. Public servants should uphold the law, not make their own laws.
Richard Holloway
January 10, 2012 at 12:19 am
Tenants attending meetings
I do not agree with tenants attending general meetings of a strata or community scheme.
An owners corporation is basically a corporation and customers do not attend share holder meetings. Discussions of owners are at times delicate and contain many privileged items.
An alternative would be to have a meeting with all residents either before or after the Annuaul General Meeting. This will encourage a community spirit.
maeroero
January 16, 2012 at 9:14 pm
rental tenants
I would not want tenants to attend our AGM or even exec meetings but I agree that somehow getting them to understand their obligations is required. I find rental agencies are a problem. We have had a number of druggie types in our building, over crowding of units, bad behaviour, rubbish left by bins drinking smoking on the property. These agencies then will quickly move a new group in when the unit is re-rented and we get a lits of defects to be repaired that are the ‘responsibility’ of the body corp. But many times we find the defects are the result of the type of occupants and their treating of the building. So we have higher management / repair costs to units in our building that are a comerical investment property to some non occupier who pays the same levy as I do. Better control of non occuying owners is needed I have often thought they should pay a higher levy
MargS
January 22, 2012 at 9:32 am
Higher levies for absentee owners
I support this idea. In fact I once lived in a strata scheme where absentee (investor) owners were required to pay a 10% surcharge on levies. This could be waived if they showed that they were taking part in onsite working bees etc.
I live in a different scheme now. 5 out of 8 units are rented out. Now just two of us (resident owners) do all the work. The tenants say they pay rent so can’t be asked to do any work. The investor owners say they pay strata fees – but invariably fight any increase in levies, and often refuse to approve much needed repairs. One had the gall to suggest that the resident owners should do garden clearing on his property, as he lived interstate!it
In the unit next to me (it has a common wall) the plumbing is shot, and the pipes constantly hammer, with the noise reverberating into my place. Tenants say they’ve asked for it to be fixed. It bugs me when owners either deliberately, or through neglect, run down their properties. I don’t understand why they do this, be we all suffer as a result. Owners Corp should have the power to force them to address issues that affect tenants and adjacent owners.
Strataspheric
February 9, 2012 at 8:47 am
Charging higher levies to investors – not on your life!
If a strata scheme charged extra levies on investors, they were acting illegally. No part of the Strata Schemes Management Act permits charging sinking or administrative levies but as per the Unit Entitlement precentage that they own.
There is a myth that owner occupies are more concerned for their property than investors. I disagree. Owners Occupiers can be a source of behavioural and management trouble in a scheme much larger than investors or their tenants. I lived to experience that with owners occupiers thinking that they own the building with an extraordinary resulting dispute.
Working Bees? have you gone mad? anybody injures themselves and you will see the compensations lawyers sueing you for millions. Do everything by the book, hire tradespeople with insurance, qualifications and dont cut corners, otherwise you will learn the lessons I learnt about the true nature of people. "Ecce Homo" they said about what they did to Christ.
MargS
February 10, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Higher levies to investors – and those working bees
Hi Strataspheric
Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences too, and I too know the Strata Nazi type.
Re the Act: I’m told that owners can vote to change the basis on which levies are charged eg unit entitlement, flat rate per owner etc.
The point I was making is this: In the three stratas I’ve now lived in, where there’s a majority of owner occupiers, the properties have been better maintained. When the investors become the majority, the property only takes a couple of years to start looking run down, even with good tenants (and there are plenty of good tenants). It’s just that absentee owners tend to lose their connection with the place, especially where landscaping, painting etc are involved. The owner of my neighbour’s unit hasn’t been near the place since he bought it.
Re the working bees. Nothing about cutting corners or doing building work, just about common sense, keeping the place tidy and taking responsibility. All you do is notify the agent of the day and work and everything’s covered by the insurances anyway. Sure there’s always a risk that someone might rort things – but they’ll find a way to do that just walking to their door!
kerrylynne
February 19, 2012 at 3:50 am
rental tenants
I dont know how you can fix it .. but maeroero’s comments are all too true…
Owner occupiers often have to put up with tenants from hell breaching all by-laws with NO BACKUP FROM CTTT IN ENFORCING THE BY-LAWS and then be further insulted by subsiding repairs needed from ill treatment of premises by tenants or pure neglect (till its a big problem) by landlords…
AND TAKE NOTE … THE BAD TENANTS THAT EXIST OUT THERE OFTEN ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS… THEY KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND THAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH BREACHING THE RULES AND MAKING LIFE HELL .. The Minister needs to instruct the CTTT to UPHOLD the by-laws so that good people have some redress in reigning in troublemakers and pests who dont give a toss for their neighbours!
We all need rules and CONSEQUENCES for bad behaviour! July 1, 2012 will mark 51 years since the World’s First Strata Law commenced in NSW …. wouldnt it be nice if the Minister saw fit to give these laws meaning again without the confusion that has crept into the administration of these strata laws? For goodness sake make it easier for the by-laws to be enforced… DONT make it more confusing and time laboured to get things done !!!
oldvalues
February 20, 2012 at 3:20 am
tenants attending meetings
I do not agree with tenants attending strata meetings, however, perhaps invite all tenants to a meeting with an agenda suited to tenants and their responsibities would be appropriate.
jackstar
January 18, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Strata Rental Tenants
Excellent Idea
ExChairman
January 19, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Tenants attending EC or general meetings
The notion that tenants should have an automatic right to attend formal meetings is absurd. They have no skin in the game, they do not pay Owner’s Corporation fees, they do not volunteer their time to sit on committees and do the work, they have no long term financial interest in the building. It is called an OWNER’s Corporation for very good reasons.
If tenants do wish to attend meetings the mechanism already exists. They can simply obtain the proxy of their landlord. If their landlord is happy for them to handle his/her affairs then so be it. That is a matter between the landlord and the tenant. But granting an automatic right for people with no financial interest in the building to directly influence its management is ludicrous.
If there is a need to communicate with tenants on a regular basis this can be done via notice boards or letters or seperate tenants meetings that our outside the normal formal management arrangements.
Ingrid Jackson
January 27, 2012 at 8:15 am
TENANTS NOT OWNERS CORPORATION RESPONSIBILITY
GNS
January 5, 2012 at 6:29 am
Strata laws
AGM or EGMs should preferably be held on Saturday,Sunday or public holiday so that most strata residents can attend the meetings without sacrificing their work commitments.
There was no quorum even at our two recent AGM and EGMs even when large capital expenditures were considered at these meetings.
Also Executive committee members should be eligible to sit on the committee for only five years continuously,even if elected at the AGM.After a one year break,they can join the EC for another 5 years if elected by members at each year’s AGM.
Commercial tenants should be allowed full freedom to let out their car parking spaces just like resident tenants.
maeroero
January 16, 2012 at 9:07 pm
strata laws AGMs
agree with the first point our (soon to be previous) strata management company held meetings week nights starting at 6:30pm and many owners found difficult getting to the meeting afterwork (sydney traffic). I found this a lack of service from the company
not too sure about EC members being restricted to max years being an exec memebr can be a very thankless job so a lot that do it do it as a sence of responsibility although I have noted others that seem to be there for personal inetrest
in our scheme we get a lot of members but not all actually do anything or vote on anything making it hard to get a majority decsion even to pay a simple bill or get a costing etc.. somehow weeding these out in someway would help us be more effective
DT
February 5, 2012 at 4:46 am
General Meeting dates
Weekend meetings are no more popular than weekday meetings. What works for you won’t work for others. Parents with kids don’t want meetings in Saturday mornings. There are religious issues, work and social commitments. The answer may be in using Skype and voting slips to allow people to attend regardless of traffic conditions and timing
MargS
January 22, 2012 at 11:24 am
Strata meeting
Excellent suggestion GNS. Our agent used to hold meetings at 7pm, which I could get to. Then they decided to only hold them at 2pm or 4pm, and only send out notices out a week before. I’m starting to think it’s to discourage attendance, so as to make it as easy as possible for them.
Adrian Price
January 8, 2012 at 4:41 am
A major problem I see it is
A major problem I see it is the lax regulation of financial reporting requirements especially in my strata where the annual budget is in exfcess of $200k but does not qualify as a large strata scheme. If an EC member is so minded to do something within the books it is close to impossible to have the matter investigated and the dispute process is so weak and slow that you end up being worn out by the whole process and people get away with misappropriation of OC funds.
I see this as a particularly serious defect in the legislation. More and more older people are buying into strata units and their ability to perceive that a neighbour to could misappropriate funds is utterly unthinkable (cognitive dissonance). Consider this, if an owner has criminal tendencies, ingratiates himself with his neighbours and then should choose to become chairman in control of $330k in funds and do some "diddling", and he is really good at it, the chances of his being detected are next to none. If discovered however, he can stare-down the petitioner and use the legal process to utterly frustrate their genuine inquiries.
There needs to be an inspectorate function under the Act that will respond to matters of fraud without the need to go to dispute, orders, and enforcement in the civil courts, or to the police. Working people do not have the time or energy to do this. This is a real life case sadly.
Richard Holloway
January 10, 2012 at 12:34 am
What is a small scheme
I agree with Ned Kelly (08/01/2012).
The determination of a large scheme based of the number of lots is floored. Whilst a 120 lot scheme could have an annual budget of $240,000 a 4 lot commercial schemes could have a budget of $1,000,000.
Abetter operation of the large scheme definition is that it be the existing definition or an annual budget/turnover of greater than $200,000.
fineline
January 10, 2012 at 5:34 am
Tennants attendance at strata meetings
While I would agree with Mr Holloways comments with regard to tenants not attending Annual General meetings, due to BC’s need to address sensitive matters at AGM’s unfortunately, there are urgent matters, involving tenants, and owners responsibilities, that need to be addressed at meetings, as an ongoing part of the effective management of any Strata complex. These may not wait until after the conclusion of an AGM.
Alison W
January 12, 2012 at 1:40 am
Strata: use of multiple proxies
My concern is that there is no limit on the number of proxies that can be held by one person, and the resultant possibility of vote results being skewed towards the required outcome of one (or more) proxy holders, despite the concerns/issues/votes of those who attend a meeting in person. In fact, in our large complex, multiple proxies were used to elect particular executive committee members, even though some of those people were not even present at the meeting whilst other interested owners were: a weird result!
Jocelyn Nott
January 16, 2012 at 12:39 am
Strata Title laws
My concern in the area I live in – on the Northern Beaches – is the number of short stay rentals. We have 5 owners out of 10 who are renting on a holiday/short stay basis. Some of these short stays can be for only a few days or a weekend even though the local council, Warringah, advised me that in the zone I live in permits short stay rentals of no less than 7 days. Some owners advertise less than this on their websites. They also put in extra beds or bunks so that a unit which would normally sleep 3 or 4 people now have six or more people staying in the unit.
We have a constant flow of people coming and going who do not respect or even know of the strata laws they might have to abide by and treat the place like a motel. Holiday makers tend also to entertain so there are more visitors here and rubbish bins full of holiday disposable items and many do not bother to recycle. They cause havoc by not parking in the allocated spaces and many more minor considerations which permanent residents respect and do not inconvenience their neighbours. Because these temporary visitors are strangers and on holidays, there is no point in bringing problems to their attention and the owners of these units are not here to notice the problems.
With short stays there is a constant flow of cleaners coming and going every few days who do not respect the quiet of residents on Sundays etc.
There are different fire safety regulations by the council for the normal strata buildings and a motel/backpacker/short stay type of building and I wonder if this may void our insurance policy.
As there are only two owner occupied units out of the 10 I do not have a voice at Strata Meetings or with our Managing Agents, so thank you for the opportunity to voice my side of things. This other owner occupier has his unit for sale partly because of living amongst strangers and then I will be the only owner-occupier.
Thank you, Jocelyn Nott
Emily Empire
February 13, 2012 at 3:46 am
Short Term Rentals
I have read Jocelyn Nott’s complaints re short term leasing. In any building there can be problem tenants, including owners and permanent tenants. Often there are perceived problems with short term lettings that actually do not exist, or problems that can occur whether tenants are short or long term. I am not sure why it makes a difference if a tenant stays 2 days or 7 days. The 2 day tenant is not likely to be there except to sleep, as who would rent an apartment for 2 days and then not leave it.
Parking problems are usually created by permanent residents who often have 2 cars or use their garage for storage. Short term tenants are likely to have only one car that they can park in their allocated space and half the time they have no car at all. Perhaps she should mark her space as private.
Short term tenants are subject to maximum number of occupiers. Permanent tenants and owners do not have this restriction.
It is just as likely a permanent resident will clean on the weekend, as many people work during the week. If she lived in a house she would hear lawnmowers all day sunday. Who cares if somebody cleans an apartment on a Sunday? Holiday apartments need to be kept immaculate and vermin free which can only be advantageous to the building in general.
Holiday tenants are subject to stricter regulations and can be evicted immediately (and can lose their bond and unused accommodation for breaches) unlike the permanent tenant who can take over 3 months to remove. And how do you remove a trouble making owner?
Perhaps the holiday makers would not be "strangers" if she took the time to greet them. It would be nice if overseas visitors and other visitors are welcomed to the Northern Beaches and residents did not feel that they own the location exclusively. Tourists and visiting business people are valuable to the community and local businesses. Many are visiting their families on the Northern Beaches.
Her attitude is similar to people who buy across the road from pubs then complain about the noise, even though the pub has been there forever. If she does not like the situation in her building, she should have bought in a building where that situation does not exist.
Thank you for allowing me to respond.
Emily
Waratah
January 16, 2012 at 5:46 am
I absolutely agree with
I absolutely agree with Stratachic…
We make sure that every new owner or tenant in our large Community Scheme gets a copy of the By-Laws …by hand…with a brief run down of the most common breaches to avoid. Regardless ,some occupiers act as though the by-laws don’t apply to them. Appealing and threatening is unpleasant and particularly when some breaches appear too minor to go to the tribunal with.
Is it possible that a Strata Committee or Community Assosciation be given the power to impose fines for minor breaches which would be defined ( eg leaving garbage bins out when the by laws state they should be out of view…or leaving Xmas decorations on the outside of the building until July.. parking vehicles on common property that is part of the Community space ( a park),etc.) The fines could only be imposed after 3 well spaced official warnings to the offender ,would have to be structured under law and added to the owner’s strata fee.The owner would certainly chase any tenant to comply before the fine was applied!
The amount of the fine should be sufficient to bring about the result required by the strata body .Failure to change after this action gives a good reason then to go to the tribunal. The decision to fine also needs a structured format to follow.
Just a thought..
Waratah
Nello - Sydney
January 16, 2012 at 10:38 am
Strata Managing Agents
I have been involved in a number of body corporates over some years in NSW. The matter which keeps re-emerging is the closed shop attitude that Strata Managing Agents convey. By this, I mean, that they bully and intimidate owners’ who may not be fully aware of the laws and they can be agressive and evasive when they want. Each year, because the Strata Manging Agent is present at meetings, owners’ present feel intimidated and merely agree to the extention of the contract (Agency Agreement). They do not want to cause friction. I feel that it should be mandatory for at least two quotations to be submitted to the AGM for discussion. This may include the proposed renewal of an existing Strata Managing Agency with another proposal from a proposed new provider (another Strata Managing Agent).
michael chacha
February 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Strata Managers TERM one year only
Strata Managers are raking in the $$$$$ overcharging , skimming, kick backs from THEIR tradies n services that the STRATA MANAGER provides
their take or Misinterpretation of the Regulations.. This is Common as most owners do not have a single iota of an idea regarding the By Laws n Regulations. Another SKIMM by S .Ms DISBURSEMENTS a Joke, storage fees, inspection fees, pathetic interest rates for Sinking Fund Trusts , they must be obtaining some form of financial benefit, the list goes on n on
I fully agree with Nello n I will add "The majority of Strata Managers are Shysters/."
Hers the biggest SINGLE MISTAKE THAT CAN BE MADE BY OWNERS N THE EXEC COMMITTEE
and that is
"To hand over all the responsibilities of the Executive Committee to the Strata Manager and the day to day affairs/ running of that particular Strata Svcheme.. In ESSENCE its an OWNERS COP OUT.. Giving someone else the power to do as they please WITH YOUR ASSET
THOSE WHO ALLOW THIS AND SUPPORT HANDING OVER THE RESPONSIBILITIES TO A STRATA MANAGER
ARE COMMITTING FINANCIAL SUICIDE
giving their rights and responsibilities TO A NON OWNER can only be
NUTS
Write a BLANK CHEQUE and watch your investment and or your place of residence decrease in value , no matter which way you look at it, Place of Residence or Investment IT IS STILL AN ASSET.
helpless of manly
January 16, 2012 at 11:16 pm
the impossibility of strata management
We have owned an investment property in Manly for about a decade. For the first few years we ignored everything except the AGM but then woke up and realised we should take an interest because all was not running smoothly or fairly in our owners corporation.
We own one unit in a small block and have the smallest unit entitlement which leaves us in a powerless position. All we feel we are there for is to make up the money to the people with the numbers.
I believe, after doing a personal survey albeit with people I bump into in the course of my daily activities, that the current system of owners corporations is an impossible way to run strata title properties.
People bring their personalities into the equation and my experience has been belligerence, self-interest, bullying and allround unpleasantness. And I will now, relucantantly, introduce a generalisation into my post. My modest survey and personal experience has revealed that retired people bring these qualities to strata management.
I wish I could offer a solution to this but how do you legislate to reduce belligerance and self-interest out of the current system – I certainly don’t know.
However, I do have a suggestion that documentation from the Land & Property Information office be rewritten so that property owners without a law degree can understand it – or at least when the information is communicated to the general public be done so in language comprehensible to those of us untrained in law.
michael chacha
February 28, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Committee members they Join to
Feather their own nests n to ensure that they BENEFIT n are in real terms not interested others
Only themselves..THIS ISSUE HAS CONTINUALLY BEEN MENTIONED in this Forum
NotenantsatBodyCorpmeetings
January 19, 2012 at 12:52 am
Tenants at Strata meetings
While I agree that tenants need to be better informed about what is happening in a building, this should not mean they should attend the strata meetings, where those who pay quarterly fees discuss and determine how that money is spent. Having been a tenant, I can recall that I had not idea how much things cost and had unrealistic expectations of timelines for works I thought should be done, and now being an owner have experienced a tenant in the building where I own/occuply my unit, a tenant who really did not seem to realise that every request they made was not free, and actually had significant costs attributed. For this tenant, the meeting would conclude promptly that noone who owned wanted any of these things – yet if she attended, we would have wasted time being forced to discuss the wants of someone who no longer even lives there. These meetings are for those who are paying money into the maintenance of the building to have their say. Communication with tenants should be made better – Real Estate agents should have a responsibility to provide accurate information about the building, and updates provided of any major works or changes to be communicated through these channels. Eg – where and which is the communal washing machine. Which spot is the tenants parking spot. What are the bylaws – and for pets, this does not mean that if the building permits that they are allowed them… as this ultimately still remains the owner’s decision anyway. As an owner/occupier, I already struggle in votes where investors have more say than those living in the building on how the money is spent. Their decisions are made on tax deductions and not on what will make living there more pleasant. Add tenants who don’t even have to pay for the work to the mix, and I have little reason to remain as an owner/occupier!
Ed Gilmore
January 19, 2012 at 3:31 am
Proposed strata law changes
Congratulations to the government for initiating public opinion on what is wrong with the present strata laws.
However, the two articles which appeared in last Saturday’s Herald (14-15 January) by Jimmy Thompson do have merit, particularly in regard to his reply to the four questions posed by the government. These questions only represent the tip of the iceberg and give little regard to the rights of landlords.
My experience as a landlord over time with defaulting tenants and the operation of RBB?CCT has been less than satisfactory. To the point where not only do several tenants still owe me money and cannot be located but in one instance the RBB mistakenly sent a cheque to the defaulting tenant instead of myself. When I approached the Wollongong office they informed me that my only redress was to take the RBB to the Supreme Court.
After having received decisions by the tribunal in my favour, I have also been unsuccessful in being able to locate or receive any money from the defaulting tenants even though I have engaged solicitors, sheriffs and a Magistrates court as well as private investigators. Quite frankly it appears that rogues reign.
Your consideration of my complaints as a landlord in your enquiry would be appreciated.
chris core
January 19, 2012 at 9:08 am
Community Title and Multiple Occupancies
We seek to make the review aware that as a subset of Community Title there are Multiple Occupancies seeking to be included in Community Title that are in need of being involved in the consultation project and the formal review of the legislation this year.
Problems: Land Ownership; Our property is currently under a Multiple Occupancy(MO) structure, on a single title.. We are three families, each living in a fully Council approved Dwelling. When we began in the mid-1980s Council was approving “Hamlet development”, which we adopted. We have made representations to TSC as to the possibility of a Title change, such as a change to Community Title(CT). However no planning instrument has been made available – unlike neighbouring Byron Shire.
Subdivision: Clause 4.2B of the 2010 Tweed LEP states that no strata or community title subdivisions are allowed on certain rural or environmental protection zones. Unfortunately converting our M.O to Community Title is viewed as a subdivision.
1. Specific Issues and Concerns.
Title: The single title on our block means that the Credit Union holds the single mortgage, with each of the three parties being signatories and guarantors of each other’s loans. Not only is this unwieldy and potentially risky, it also makes further borrowing impossible. We cannot use the equity in our property to invest elsewhere. It is difficult if not impossible for one party to sell, as the others would have to guarantee the loan of the purchaser.
Succession: Our children are now mature and as we look past middle age it is very difficult to plan for their futures. Our agreements were relatively easy between three couples of similar age and vision. However, between us we have 9 children, who are now getting to the stage of having their own partners. A more structured plan such as community or strata title is really needed.
Land Management: There are issues regarding fencing with neighbours, weed management, road maintenance, bushfire prevention and water provision that need constant attention. These issues are being magnified as we get older and have more time commitments elsewhere.
2. Possible Solutions
. Possible alternatives to Multiple Occupancy Title Problems.
Community Title. If we could have a process created to allow conversion to Community Title then our internal M.O arrangements could be formalised.
Criteria: Local Councils could set criteria that ensure that properties are well planned and managed to be able to apply for conversion from MO to CT. Criteria could include Council approved dwellings, Surveyed boundaries, Rural Fire Service approval, Suitable access roads and compliance with Sewage provisions. Councils could consolidate its Rates base as a result, as currently many MOs operate outside council control (not ours).
nmcgregor
January 21, 2012 at 12:12 am
Living in Strata Title
Having been a tenant and owner in Strata I cannot tell you the frustration, from noise, to Strata Managers who are a licence to print money. Other owners who no interest in the strata title and leave the responsibility to others to owners and tenants who have no respect for those around them.
Strata Managers – this is an industry that should be regulated, lets be honest there is corruption the industry should be investigated, there is an owners group available but it is very limited relying on support from those that seek it out, this group should be associated to Fair Trading, so that as owner you are aware that you have this support available to you and can assist in setting agendas and at least providing some support to you when things can do go wrong.
We had a Strata Manager who had no idea of understanding what a lot of the changes were, as an example the law that was passed on making sure that the Owners Corporation had enough funds in the slush fund for any up coming expenses, in his wisdom he would just propose that the rates between the owners be increased, even though there were enough funds to cover the work, it wasn’t until I read into this that I realised he did not know what he was talking about and was misleading the Owners Corporation. This highlights the issue that Owners need to be more informed with more simplistic information and not just a lot of jargon from the Government and what their obligations are it is up to Owners to ensure that the know what any changes are. But you are at the mercy of Strata Managers also to ensure that they not telling you things that are not true. Enforced levies, it was decided under the Strata Manager that the sewerage pipe needed to be replaced under the Strata Managers’ guidance we were told that we need a special levy of I think around $1500.00 extra between six owners as the cost would be around $7000.00 to do the work. We were never shown the quotes for the work, and I really do not know if you are entitled to see them, it turned out that the cost was less than what we had been told, when I questioned where the other money was he said that it was sitting somewhere I can’t remember, but the point of the matter is that if they are enforcing these costs they should be transparent the work that is done should be at a fixed cost to the owners. He then tried to get us to remove a tree that he said had been told to him that was dangerous – under our own interests we had the tree inspected by a tree surgeon who said that the tree was not dangerous at all, he would have then cost another $3-$5k, if we had not taken our own initiative.
On another side of this when the work was done for the sewerage line the plumber that the Strata Manager employed did not put the mains junction back on so we had sewerage bleeding into our apartment and starting to cause water damage. We were not able to take action against the plumber as the engagement with the plumbing company but they are hired by the Strata Manager even though it is your hard earned money paying for the work. This needs to be changed if they damage your property you should be able to take them to court and the law needs to be changed that even though they have conducted work that lets them off if they damage your property it should be criminal and treated as such, they cost us six weeks of painting and having our unit unrentable during this time and affected them and the Strata Manager in no way. No affect to them at all. How is this right?
Noise is another issue that should be dealt with if you are affecting others with your noise then there should be some sort of repercussion, from animals to stereos (loud music), cars the list goes on it is a community and respect to others should be given, even kids playing – or when construction is done then there should be allocated spaces for kids to play – this would lead to more community, allocated for parking should be away from living spaces, better insulation in properties should be sort to alleviate affecting others. Better builidng codes is a must moving beyond – just code to upping the code for buildings and better design.
Of course pets should be allowed but people should be aware of the impact on others when their bad education affects others, dogs that constantly bark, people who complain to others but don’t complain to the owners corporation for fear retribution, allowing tenants to attend these forums should be made more open to them also, they represent or paying for the owner of the property that they are living in and so therefore should be allowed a voice where the living impacts them or there should be more room for a community voice rather than just calling it an owners corporation, perhaps it should be more like a co-op. Engaging with tradespeople should be up to the "Co-op" and the final decision of the Strata Managers.
Again I reiterate that Strata Managers should be audited and weed out those that are not transparent in their dealings. Only licensed tradespeople should be engaged. The people living in the strata title should be more informed on the changes and how they will impact them. Rates should not be allowed to just be upped at the whim of the Strata Manager.
Noise needs to be dealt with more fluidly rather than ambigously as it is a tenancy agreement or living in strata wording.
Better building and planning of communities is desperately required, not just developers who throw up these cheap options and charge a fortune for badly designed and built buildings, these sorts of environments of living in close quarters causes a lot of stress and unhappiness as they are badly planned and poorly built and councils allow them as they just see more revenue coming their way, rather than thinking about the living impacts.
cinerama
January 21, 2012 at 2:10 am
BAN PIANOS
I live in an apartment in Ashfield whereby the tenant above me has a piano. As the walls are very thin,the sound of a piano drives me crazy as a pensoiner. I can’t watch TV., use the internet or phone and especially cannot sleep.I had to get the local council to send them letter re stopping the piano playing.It worked and they now only play it during the weekday mid afternoons when I am out.Currently section A of the Strata Act states that you cannot make any noise thich disturbes any resident 24/7. Some councils ban pianos in apartments as do some countries.
GeoffWhere
January 21, 2012 at 7:33 am
TENANT ACCESS TO STRATA OWNERS CORP
I live in a block of 9 apartments, 8 are occupied, 4 of those by owners – all of whom are members of the Strata Committee.
With 50% of the occupancy and 100% of the voting rights, this committee is able to make decisions that completely ignore the other 50% of occupants, even though we contribute, via our rental payments, about 44% of the Strata fees!
This situation is not only patently unfair, it’s unsustainable. Of the 4 tenants, 3 have been resident for 2 years or more. Surely, this tenure should be recognised by provisions that, at the very least, allow representation on the Strata committee either by representation or by enabling our voting as a block on proposed rulings.
These voting rights could be as simple as a ballot of tenants to allow committee voting rights proportionate to our level of occupancy. The voting right proportion would be determined by the ratio of tenant to owner occupancy which, in my case, would provide one vote on the committee, cast according to the majority decision of the 4 tenants.
This would provide for a 20% representation on the Strata committee for a tenant density of 50%. I’m sure the mathematicians and actuaries could come up with a better formula, but it’s the principle that needs to be discussed and agreed.
Comments welcome and encouraged.
ExChairman
January 23, 2012 at 5:42 am
Tenants Representation
Geoff, you ALREADY have representation on your OC. It is via your landlord or in his/her absence via their rental agent. If your landlord chooses not to be active on your behalf that is a matter between you and him/her.
There is no way tenants should have direct access or influence over the OC or EC. Sure tenants have rights, but these must be exercised through their landlord. It is the landlord that has the financial interest in the building… NOT the tenant.
You are dead wrong when you say that the 4 owner-occupiers in your building have all the votes. Whilst this is true at an EC level (in your case) it most certainly is not true at a general meeting where major decisions are taken and budgets approved.
I have been both a tenant and and owner and I can guarantee you Geoff, if you ever become an owner your view will change 180 degrees. In the meantime, exercise your influence through your landlord. That is the fit and proper way it should be done.
unit.dweller
January 21, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Strata Laws
Smoking in Home Units
I would like to comment on that currently there is no legislation covering people who smoke and who live in home units.
People tend to smoke on their balconies and the smoke drifts to others’ living spaces, making it unpleasant and a serious health hazard for the people living around the smokers.
Ash dropped from cigarettes goes onto the common areas or onto people who walk under the balconies or through entry and exit doors to a unit building.
In almost every other area of life, smoking is governed by legislation, however the Strata Act is silent on this important matter. This silence makes it very difficult for a management committee to try to be proactive and move towards a smoke-free building.
Consideration should be given to protecting an executive committee where the committee has endeavoured to introduce a by-law regarding non-smoking and other measures to stop or limit smoking within a unit block. (ref SMH article 29/12/2011 smoking in home units)
Suggestions in moving towards a smoke free environment are;
-ask all owners to include clauses in their rental agreements concerning smoking to be only within the confines of a person’s living space or only non-smokers are to be preferred
-the executive committee to provide a smoking area within the unit grounds, where smokers and any visitors to a block who wish to smoke, may do so, not at the detriment or health of others.
Maria Silva
January 22, 2012 at 9:42 am
Strata Units, Owners Corporation, Strata Managers & Agents
The current Strata By-Laws are sensible and workable for old buildings (over 20 years old) just need fine tuning to empower the Owners Corporation to enforce compliance with the by-laws without the current red tape as well as few additions to take into account fire safety, OHS regulations and sinking funds regulations. Common Property should remain as it is now. Occupants, whether they are owners or tenants, have rights and obligations.
It should be made compulsory for occupants (owners and tenants) to undergo training on Strata By-Laws as well as rubbish and recyclables disposal.
Providing that the building is maintained, I disagree with strata schemes termination for old buildings unless 100% of the owners vote in favor. A lot of Owners of old buildings reside in the units and don’t have the units as investment.
Since the Owners Corporation is responsible for implementing regulations (e.g. fire safety, OHS, etc) and paying for repairs to common property, Real State Agents and Strata Managers must be stripped off their running powers and be stopped from over ruling the decisions made by the Owners Corporation.
Any amendments to be made to the current strata laws must take into account old strata buildings (e.g. like mine that is over 40 years old, not designed and built to current standards and BCA code) as well as fire safety regulations imposed on Owner Corporations by Councils (e.g. in my case by Warringah Council), OH&S regulations for what Owners Corporation are obliged by law to comply with, etc.
If Owners Corporation (via the Executive Committees) are going to be made responsible for implementing fire safety regulations, OH&S regulations, etc then the Executive Committees must be given the power to make owners and residents to comply with the By-Laws and the regulations without having to endure the extremely amount of endless and useless bureaucracy we currently have.
An owner / tenant engaging in renovations without proper consent and approval are a risk to the rest of the building/occupants, as there may be serious implications on fire safety, damage to common property, increase in noise levels (timber floors), etc.
We cannot have Real Estate Agents collecting the rent, pretending to carry out inspections, but turning a blind eye to damage to common property by not reporting to the Owners Corporation / Strata Management. In old buildings, all issues should be referred to the Owners Corporation Representatives for assessment before tradesmen are appointed and given the ok to carry on the repairs.
We cannot have Real Estate Agents arranging for repairs, that although to be carried out in the units they collect the rent from, in the end affect common property meaning the Owners Corporation has to pick up the bill. Time and time again this type of repairs are very poorly done, keep on cropping up, the Owners Corporation keep on paying these bills and in the end the Owners Corporation has to intervene and pay a huge repair bill in the end.
I do feel though for tenants that do the right thing, pay their rent on time, yet are subject to defects in their units to the point their health is affected. And, as much as they can and should complain to the CTTT they don’t because they fear rent increases. However, I’m against tenants attending AGMs/EGMs, etc as these are Owners Corporation strict business.
termit
January 29, 2012 at 7:19 am
Main areas of the existing strata and community scheme
The enforcement of bylaws should be mandatory and should be reviewed every 3 years.
Jennifer
January 29, 2012 at 9:41 am
Pets – Strata By-laws
By-law 16 needs to be changed to give owners the right to own a pet and prevent any blanket prohibition. There should be a mediation procedure introduced to allow owners who are bothered by specific pets to object and the pet owners provided with the opportunity to rectify any problems. Owners who dislike pets can misuse the current by-law to threaten pet owners and force them into a situation where they have to seriously consider selling their homes.
jackstar
February 10, 2012 at 2:48 am
Pets – Strata By Laws
Not only owners have a right but so to Tenants. If’ you are a ‘responsible pet owner’ ie your pet is microchipped, registered, desexed, vacinated yearly, not dangerous etc, etc. Currently, there is a blanket prohibition on tenants and they are blantantly discriminated against by landlords and real estate agents if they have a pet. Responsbile Tenants and Pet Owners know what is required in maintaining a property especially if they own a pet. Just because you hear of some reports of owners who don’t look after pets or have too many pets don’t assume and presume that all tenants are the same as this is a ‘generalisation’. It is imperative that this by-law be brought into and kept up to date with our society and their expectations in living. By denying anyone to have a pet is taking away a right and a freedom of choice.
silver spot
February 19, 2012 at 7:34 am
Pets in Strata
In the 2010 Model By Laws, By Law 17 is multiple choice. When adopting these By Laws the OC can choose to allow cats and small dogs.
Collective Sales
January 29, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Collective Sales
Collective Sales SEPP – Provision of new dwellings in existing urban area/rural settlements
Financing of planning and infrastructure for additional dwellings
Collective Sales SEPP to be issue by state government to stimulate medium and high density construction in existing urban area/rural settlements. Existing infrastructure in existing urban area/rural settlements, much with additional capacity. Well-resourced councils with large existing ratepayer base. Financing of planning and infrastructure proposed through a combination of special local levies, general state levies and lower developer contributions to lessen the price impacts of existing infrastructure enhancement on new dwellings in existing urban areas/rural settlements.
Strata Scheme Collective Sales
Collective Sales SEPP issued by government outlining collective sales process.
1. Formation of collective sale committee, signing of the Collective Sale Agreement
2. Fair market valuation by independent valuer for split of collective sale proceeds and current building valuation (including rezoning value uplift). Dissenters to be identified and dissenter relocation plan submitted for purchasing equivalent value apartments for dissenters including transaction and relocation costs funded from collective sales proceeds.
3. Owner’s quorum would be required to trigger the collective sales process, 80% quorum required for buildings greater than 10 years old and 90% quorum required for buildings less than 10 years old.
4. Application for rezoning by sale committee to NSW Planning and Infrastructure for minimum of a 25% increase in floor space and a maximum determined by site capacity from urban design report. Required reports include infrastructure reports, transport report and human services reports to assess capital and recurrent costs of enhancements to existing infrastructure and scale of special levies required to be applied cumulatively by state and local governments. Impact on existing government infrastructure investments to also to be assessed.
5. Application of termination of strata scheme to Registrar-General by NSW Planning and Infrastructure upon rezoning.
6. Termination of strata scheme and exchange of collective sales following public tender. Execution of dissenter relocation plan and settlement and distribution of remaining proceeds.
Site Aggregation Collective Sales
Collective Sales SEPP issued by government outlining collective sales process. FSR increases for aggregated sites to yield suitably zoned sites larger than 2,000sqm in existing urban area/rural settlements suitable for apartment construction. Fair market valuation by independent valuer for split of collective sale proceeds and current building valuation (including rezoning value uplift). Joint application for Minimum 25% increase in floor space up to a maximum determined by site capacity from urban design report. Required reports include infrastructure reports, transport report and human services reports to assess capital and recurrent costs of enhancements to existing infrastructure and scale of special levies required to be applied cumulatively by state and local governments. Impact on existing government infrastructure investments to also to be assessed. Public tender for collective sales and distribution of proceeds following rezoning gazettal.
Del Mutton
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 am
Everyone who manages a strata should have a TAFE certificate
My submissions are:
1. Everyone who manages a strata should have a TAFE certificate in Basic Strata Management.
2.There should be open scrutiny of Strata Levy Administration and Sinking funds by interested owners through access to bank account details.
NB. Does anyone know for sure how much money is actually in the accounts to back up strate statements?
3. The Department of Fair Trading should receive an annual strata management form, similar to a tax return, for review, advice and further action if necessary.
4. Strata levy increases should be set at a reasonable level so that pensioners are given a fair go versus rich investors who are only interested in making money.
Bert Sheridan
January 30, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Wheel clamping of vehicles trespassing on private land
As a member of the body corporate of a block of units, we are frequently inconvenienced by a minority of residents who ignore and openly flout the property by-laws and illegally park a vehicle in a visitor car space. The law seems to be strongly biased towards the tenant, it being a long and tedious process to have the vehicle removed and to impose a fine. Even then the fine is little more than a slap on the wrist even if the vehicle has been continually offending for several months.
Currently it is illegal for the land owner (or in our case the Unit Body Corporate) to clamp the wheels of an illegally parked vehicle and impose a fine even if we have a prominent notice warning violators that wheels can be clamped, the size of the fine and that the vehicle may be towed away.
Whilst I fully agree that it is important to have a fair balance, I firmly believe that the current law is too strongly biased in favour of the offending tenant(s).
I would like to suggest the following changes:
(a) that a sign (or signs) must be prominently displayed warning drivers
that illegally parked cars can have their wheels clamped and be towed away
together with the size of the fine. It must be obvious that the land is
private property.
(b) the maximum size of the fine/release fee would be stipulated in the legislation.
(c) for a private home/residence, the offending vehicle could be clamped on the first offence.
(d) for a unit block, at least three prior warnings in writing would have to be given for offences on separate days before the vehicle could be clamped and towed away.
Whilst this may seem as a storm on a tea cup, I have no doubt that the majority of strata unit residents would welcome such a small and inexpensive change in the legislation to overcome this extremely annoying problem.
silver spot
February 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
Parking on Common Property
I agree that parking on common property is a serious issue. The first hurdle to overcome is the privacy act. It’s nigh on impossible to be sure who owns a vehicle and thus to be sure whether the vehicle is a genuine visitor’s vehicle. There needs to some way for owners corporations to have access to the address of owners of illegally parked vehicles so that they can take action. Then of course there needs to be some real action that can be taken legally.
We are required by the building approval consent to have 8 visitors parking spaces. Those spaces are never available for visitors. There are also residents vehicles parked on other parts of the common property that are not marked parking spaces. Our ability to gain compliance simply does not exist in NSW.
I’m told that clamping and towing is available to owners corporations in QLD.
The strata act needs to allow owners corporations the ability to enforce compliance.
Jon
January 31, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Floors and smoke
Other than kitchen and bathroom all floors should be carpet. No BBQs on balconies. No smoking on the property.
I have lived in a block of units for a very long time. Timber floors no matter how good the sound insulation is, example 15mm rubber plus 19mm plywood and 19mm solid timber. does not work. In our case so many units have now got timber floors the build as a whole now has this underlying background noise.
BBQ smoke just irritates everyone. Also I would like to see smoking banned, the smoke works it’s way through and into other units. In this day and age when we clearly know the heath issues of secondary smoke, smoking needs to be stopped for the health of the community. In our building the vast majority who don’t smoke are all effected by the very few who do smoke.
cbox4
February 2, 2012 at 1:01 am
Tribunal effectiveness
I believe the system presently available is cumbersome to the ponit of being absurd and favours the recalcitrant owner.
Owners Corporations have become dissolutioned and reluctant to pursue breaches of By-laws due to costs to resolve the issues and the time of EC members who give of their time without remuneration and in many instance have to go to work.
A By-law should be upheld by the tribunal and if a breach has been proven then the offender should be fined appropriate to the degree of the breach.
A public servant should not make law. Their role should only be to uphold the law.
The making of law should only be the prerogative of our elected representatives.
The presumption in seting up of the tribunal was to expedite matters, amicably without costly legal representation and to minimise the time involvement of everyone.
Let us not forget the members are volunteers.
We have in our complex what I believe is a recalcitrant family.
It brought a dog onto the premises without approval which took two (2) years to obtain a final decision for the dog’s removal.
The unit owner appealed the original judgement.
The adjudicator stated the owner was unreasonable in the notice given to engage solicitors.
The combined total cost to the parties is estimated to be in excess of $40,000 inc. the 3 appearances by the owner’s barrister.
In addition the same owner has made many alterations to her unit without obtaining approval prior or after the work has been undertaken despite advising the owner these were breaches.
On one occasion it was necessary to seek an interim order against this owner when threatened with major work commencing within 7 days without approval or adequate information for the committees consideration.
Last but not least the family and partner and friend have repeatedly used the visitor parking for 24 hours per day over numerous continuous days and on occasions dominating two of only 3 visitor spaces available.
I believe an indepedent body should be established with one member beng a solicitor to hear disputes and determine the matter strictly on the body of proof and the determination be the end of the matter.
silver spot
February 19, 2012 at 7:49 am
Pets and the by laws
That old by law on pets was impossible. The 2010 Model By Law 17, if adopted appropriately, is a much better by law.
sfoots
February 2, 2012 at 2:00 am
Noise
Timber floors should be prohibited in unit blocks. Anyone living below a timber floor knows how much noise there is and it seems that all the padding used still does not match the acoustic capability of carpet.
There needs to be a better way to control the noise made by other tenants in the building, including, but not limited to: loud TVs, loud music, motor bikes, renovations / handy man work outside the permitted times.
oldvalues
February 20, 2012 at 3:24 am
no BBQ’s on balconies
Absolutely no barbeques on balconies. My home is my castle, but not when it smells of BBQ onions and smoke.
cbox4
February 1, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Executive Committee membership
The term of membership should not be restricted.
The apathy of owners is notorious.
If owners do not volunteer or attend ECM’s, EGM’s, or AGM’s to assist in determining who should be a member then they should not complain and only have themselves to blame.
Since acquiring our unit in 1992 I have been the Treasurer every year and have accepted my nomination by the owners who take the trouble to be involved.
The old saying "put up or shut up" is still valid today.
What if no one volunteers for membership and or official positions on the Executive Committee of the Owners Corporation.
Which Govt.Dept. determines who will be the administrator of the Owners Corporation.
Over the years I have assisted the Secratary office bearers who had to go to work. In recent years I felt if I do the work I should have the title.
Most of the problems arise through lack of interest and you cannot legislate against this.
cbox4
February 2, 2012 at 2:05 am
By-Law breaches
The appropriate authority should establish the basic intent of the By-Laws and as is now the practice and embody them in the Strata Living booklet.
The Owners Corporation should not be burdend with having to have amended By-laws to meet the needs of each individual Corporation which is highly inefficient and costly what with solicitors, registration and other fees.
A more efficient way is to permit Owners Corporations to develop regulations/rules/conditions to suit the individual additional needs of the their establishments.
The regulations etc. must be approved at an EGM or AGM and be filed together in a seperate folder by the Secretary and/or the Managing Agent and be available by mutual arrangement.
The committee must be given the power to establish fines within guidelines estalished by the "Authority".
The fines can be for the offence and for each day thereafter that the offence continues.
There must be an incentive for the offence not to occur and the the offender to desist.
All fines to be retained by the Owners Corporation.
The present system does not encourage proper behaviour from recalcitrant owners or vexatious litigants.
cbox4
February 2, 2012 at 2:21 am
Tenants rights
Tenants rights are more than protected under tenancy legislation and should not be given any powers to interfere how the Strata is administered.
The tenant has no financial exposure.
If he has a problem with his tenancy then it is a matter between the tenant and the landlord.
The tenants could be encouraged to attend EC meetings and be bound by the rules of nonmembers.
Our experience in 23years they have never attended.
cbox4
February 2, 2012 at 2:39 am
Unit alterations
A simpler system in dealing with applications for alterations to units would be to allow the EC to approve applications subject to adequate information being provided
Such approvals to be fully documented and held by the Secretary and/or Managing Agent in a folder register.
The Act to clearly state that the work is thereafter the responsibility of the current owner and any subsequent owner from time to time.
This shall apply whether the owner has sought approval or not.
This also to apply to work affecting common areas.
The OC has no further responsibility for this work.
MargS
February 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Unit alterations
I support the above comment. My neighbour and I have both built pergolas – with OC approval, and on the understanding that we are responsible for future maintenance of the structures. Another resident also built a pergola, without approval, and insists that the OC pay for the painting and repairs. THe agent lets it through because they don’t have any evidence that the pergola wasn’t part of the original building. Why should we suffer for doing the right thing?
sfoots
February 2, 2012 at 1:02 am
Smoking
I would also like to see laws changed to protect residents from the effects of smokers in the building. Most people do what they can to stay healthy, eating right, exercising, plenty of fresh air, etc and ‘not’ smoking. This is then undone by having to inhale other people’s smoke. There is plenty medical evidence to prove that the effects of smoking (smoking & passive smoking) are deleterious to everyone’s health. As a minimum, smoking should be banned in the common areas (inside and outside) and on the balconies, limiting the areas where people can smoke to inside their own units. They’ve managed to do this in the hotel’s and clubs, so now we also need to protect people in their own homes.
oldvalues
February 20, 2012 at 3:36 am
smoking
Smoking should be banned in areas where the smoke drifts into other units. My neighbour smokes outside his front door and the smoke drifts up to our bedroom.
geraldine grace
February 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Ban Smoking
Agree – smoking needs to be confined to inside their space with the doors and windows closed. We are so tired of living next door to chain smokers who smoke in their beds with the balcony door opened. We are unable to enjoy fresh air in the evenings and early mornings with our bedroom balcony door open because of their smoke creeping into our bedroom. The same goes for the courtyard space. Two older people continually smoking day in and day out. Please do it inside their place and give everyones lungs a break!!!
sfoots
February 2, 2012 at 1:49 am
Leaf Blowers
I would like to see the use of leaf blowers banned from residental unit properties. The main reason is the CO fumes that are foul smelling and toxic to everyone’s health, including the people using them. These fumes waft inside people’s units. Second is the noise. Have you tried to talk on the phone or listen to the radio or TV while one of these is operating outside? Thirdly, these days when we are considering environmentally conscious alternatives, why are these still allowed? Surely there is an electric alternative with no fumes, no smell and no noise.
corinne
February 2, 2012 at 3:21 am
STRATA CHANGES
being in WA and having owned many units i have to say generally speaking it all just such hard work. in one building we were held to randsom by an 80 year old lady who didnt want the plumbing problems in the building fixed as her’s were working fine and she slowed the process down by years becuase of her rediculous attitude. in the mean time the strata had to spend thousands of dollars on contact cleaning of drains and expensive stop gap measures till it could be arbitrated on. its crazy that in a building of 60+ units that one person can hold such control.
i have enjoyed reading so many valid points from so many people. i do think the %’s need to be looked at for voting on issues. especially bylaw changes. in the same building we had an owner who had died and we were unable to trace the current owner of his apartment as his will seemed to have disappeared and he was an overseas resident. apart from the fact that his unit was unrentable as no agent could contact him to get maintenance issues sorted, when it came to items that needed 100% voting and 100% in favour to pass the motions, it was impossible to do for many years.
pets in stratas has always been an issue for me. its one reason why i’d never live in an apartment myself. smoking being the other. it does seem crazy that we are protected in all other situations but not in our own 4 walls! what constitutes "uninterrupted use" of ones own space if that’s the correct term. it seems smokers have rights and everyone else around them looses out. including their health.
finding the right balance is really where its at. on all levels. I’m happy if a person wants to smoke in their apartment, as long as I dont have to smell it – with or without my windows open.
thanks
Cato
February 3, 2012 at 2:09 am
Strata law review – Internal noise; Doors
The Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (April 2009) by-laws (cl 14) and Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2010 model by-laws (cl 15) make specific reference to noise and disturbance originating from floor coverings;
Floor coverings (1) An owner of a lot must ensure that all floor space within the lot is covered or otherwise treated to an extent sufficient to prevent the transmission from the floor space of noise likely to disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot.
However, in regard to noise and disturbance originating from contact between doors and door frames, the regulations are silent.
Impact absorbing pads and materials, if fitted, between doors and door frames can harden over time, fall out, or be removed during repainting or renovation. Sometimes they might not even be present at all. Allotment entry doors, in particular, are an issue because in many unit blocks there may by three, four or more unit entry doors per level that are in close proximity, that disperse noise via the common vestibule space. Noise from banging doors can be dispersed via stairwells to additional levels or transmitted through the building structure to adjoining allotments. Without sound/impact absorption materials, even with the best of intentions annoying, intrusive and frequent noises can be generated, especially in high traffic areas.
At present, the only resolution to ongoing noise and disturbances from frequently banging doors causing disturbance is to manage them through the disputation process rather than dealing with them as an engineering or structural matter.
If it is appropriate for the by-laws to concern themselves with noise generated from floor coverings, there should also be a similar requirement controlling noise from entry and internal doors and their doorframes.
morrison
February 4, 2012 at 3:22 am
Failure of the CTTT to follow the law in its decisions
The following is a synopsis of of six years of futility in attempting to get the CTTT to solve an obvious problem, to have its orders implemented and to make decisions according to law.
michael chacha
February 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Sounds Familiar Bob
Hey Bob
Are you talking about our Strata Scheme in the Inner West of Sydney.
Gee it sounds familiar..
In our scheme the Strata manager "lost’ 2 years of the Strata Records..Geee
Good luck the CTTT has no teeth, but how does one legislate..Civil rights, personal freedoms etc etc..
Telling people to have self respect n respect for others..I dont know??
rgds M
michael chacha
February 18, 2012 at 2:48 pm
BoB is right..Unenforceable Laws ..A joke
Bob is totally right..The system is weak pathetic n has no teeth.. Many n I mean many as opposed to less Strata Managers ARE CORRUPT.
Strata Managers are skimming your funds ..The Laws HUH.. Executive Comm..I got similar problems Sink Fund Forecast Feb 2012 $69,ooo
lucky to be $10,000. A $60,000 discrepancy.. Strata Managers should not control or manage Sink Fund money..Its the ownrs money..I know of one Strata Man who has invested the Sink Fund money in a Trust Fund.. The interest .7 of 1% on $10,000 lucky to get $50 per year Its rotten to the core. What is the story here?/ it stinks of kick backs.. .7of 1%….??? when 5% is readily available.. Hello Treasurer of EXEC COMM.. To overcome or lessen these problems a strong determined and thorough TREASURER is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT
Stop the Insurance Commission Rort..20% FOR WHAT?/ a phone call follow up e mail..Electronic payment.. 10 minutes maximum.. $10,000 insurance
$2000 commission i.e 20% for 10 minutes..WATEFUL CRIMINAL n CORRUPT.. The system in a related manner encourages Strata Managers Corruption.. CALL THE POLICE
GET RID OF STRATA MANAGERS altogether, The Paperwork / accounts can be done by a Accountant / Bookeeper.
repairs n tradies.. thats easy.. local papers adverts contact ..internet listing of LOCAL TRADIES.. two quotes..Dept Fair Trade..sets up an on line listing per area..easy.. price indications per repair, records kept of all repairs with specifications of work performed n the record is duplicated, one to an owner n the other to an exec comm member preferrably the Treasurer. Strata Man tradies pay a kick back..Its Common knowledge..Why cant the relevant authorities see this//Staff of Fair Trading are fully aware of this..NOTHIN DONE. More Pro Active involvement from Exec Comm or they are Automatically sacked as NON ACTIVE.. so many are like this..NON ACTIVE but want their egos massaged, their defects fixed first..Its power that corrupts small minded self interest greedy n selfish members,, its NORMAL PRACTICE now.. STOP CORRUPTION N THE RORTS
morrison
February 22, 2012 at 2:23 am
Get Rid of Insurance Commissions for Agents
Michael Chacha is right. Get rid of Agents commissions for insurance. Agents work for the body corporate. The organising of insurance for a strata is not onerous. In our strata previously, our premium on the insurance policy was around $72,000. It is known that the insurance company concerned pays up to 15% commission to the agents ($10,800). In our case this was not disclosed by the agent (the complaint was ignored by the Specialist Support Unit). When the agent was confronted for receiving such a commission – his reply was simply that by receiving this commission he could give a low quote to get the job to manage our strata.
This is completely wrong as this can be perceived that the agent could get the best insurance for his own pecuniary benefit rather than for the benefit of the strata he is managing.
In simple terms make it illegal for strata agents to receive commisions and keep the playing field level for an agent applying for strata management.
Bob Morrison
amen
February 5, 2012 at 6:33 am
evicting a non paying tenant and other things
I have a few things I would like to change that in summary cover:
-the need for plain English instructions for those trying to seek solutions through the CTTT that can’t afford lawyers. Members get quite cross when you don’t know the details of strata law but to find the material on the web site is a nightmare.
-not all landlords are the bad guys and so it would be more appropriate if some balance could be brought back into the CTTT environment in the hearing room.
-the ability for a person to register a body corporate matter with the CTTT and then cancel it knowing that expense has been outlayed and then re-register the matter again.
– an improvement to the speed and process with which the Law directs landlords to go through the process of dealing with non-paying tenants and their eviction. Let me explain.
The circumstances were this. I had tenants who were not paying rent. they were behind nearing $5,000 ($600 per week rent) and using every tactic to delay paying. This started in April. I discussed many payment plans but none produced the outcome of having the rent paid up to date and payment on time. In December I took the problem to the CTTT. I have used lawyers before and even though this was a great deal of money to me I knew that this would explode if I used lawyers for this matter. the tribunal issued an order to pay an additional $500 per fortnight (which was what I was told all that could be afforded by the tenants). I did my annual inspection and found the place had been damaged mainly needing new carpets, new granite in the kitchen and the walls were filthy. I gave them plenty of notice and wrote the manditory letter excluding the part that says if they paid up I would let them stay. I couldn’t put that in as it was a lie. But the law says I have to say that even if I know it to be untrue. When I went in front of the member I was wrong – I can’t have an order as I did not comply with the law. In the hearing room I had to vow that I was telling the truth, the whole truth so help me God. This is ridiculous. Now due to the delay of not being granted an order I now have to submit another letter and again try to get them removed. The have already told me that they are not paying anymore money and that I can take them to the CTTT or anyone else. They won’t be found as I have no way of contacting them after they move out. I can’t have them physically removed and so I have to find the funds to pay the mortgage each week as they live rent free in my property.
In this case the bond is too small and quickly the rent debt exceeds the amount. Also this does not cover the damage that has been caused which will exceed the bond by 100% by the time the damage is repaired.
– access to the tenants next address when they run out on their rent and any damage. Even if I have their drivers license number the police can’t help me track down the departed tenant.
lina Yousif
February 7, 2012 at 1:05 am
Existing Strata and Community Scheme laws should be removed
The main areas of the existing Strata and Community Scheme laws should be removed for ever and let every one to live their life as owner of their own home.
There is a lot of issues that need to be addressed in the legislation. Strata scheme should not have the power to control other residents life and the right of people to maintenance their own home with no order taking from the strata schemes.
The best way to improved the strata schemes is to demolish the committee as well as the strata schemes and let every owner enjoy the freedman of living in this beautiful country as citizen’s right.
There are a lot of changes that needs to be taking place in every disputes of strata scheme applications to CTTT and all the crimes that happens every day of our life.
It’s because of people understanding and our multiculturalism in Australia that makes the big difference in our life.
Teresa Howes
February 7, 2012 at 2:07 am
Parking on common property
One of the biggest problems in Strata Living is parking on common property. And the fact is that there is nothing much we can do about it, or so our Managing Agent tells us. The process is so involved.
Could the enforcement of the laws be made easier or the penalties made more severe, as some tenants seem not to know they should comply or don’t want to know?
rwick
February 7, 2012 at 5:56 am
Strata Laws: Online Consultation
In response to the 4 questions raised by the Government, I would like to agree with all the points raised by Jimmy Thomson in his column Flat Chat, January 14-15, 2012, in the Sydney Morning Herald’s Domain section. In particular, I absolutely agree that the enforcement of by-laws should be obligatory, and that executive committees should be allowed to issue set fines for a specific range of breaches. Our building of 12 units is self-managed, and most occupants know that the Notices to Comply aren’t worth the paper they’re written on, because it’s so hard to get individuals fined. Furthermore, we believe that tenants have no place at the AGM, as they are inevitably the source of all the problems in smaller blocks. They refuse to abide by by-laws, because they know the law has no teeth.
Make the laws stricter and easier to enforce so that it’s easier for buildings to be self-managed, thereby saving costs for Owners Corporations.
Mike OReilly
February 7, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Terminology in the Act
Some committee members are not exactly PhD material and some are totally ignorant of the requirements of the Act.
The Act refers to setting up a ‘Sinking Fund’. The name infers that this is some sort of savings fund into which money is ‘sunk’ for some unspecified future use. It should be re-named, the ‘Repairs and Maintenance Fund’ to avoid any misunderstanding or ambiguity. (The other fund is the ‘Administration Fund’ which is an appropriately discriptive and self explanatory title). Our committee has for years just used the Sinking Fund as a general war chest of money to be spent by the committee, on whatever they deem fit, without obtaining owner approval. This is completely contrary to the Act.
Secondly, the Act requires a ’10Year Plan’ to be prepared, but doesn’t explain what is to be done with it. My interpretation is, that it is simply a planning document for: 1. To assist the committee to prepare the Sinking Fund Budget each year. 2. To provide owners (and potential buyers) of what the estimated future repair and maintenance expenses are likely to be and what year they are likely to occur, so there are no rude surprises. It is particularly appropriate in buildings which may have large single expenses such as painting, elevator or air conditioning replacement/overhaul. By its nature it is a very inexact document because it requires a lot of very approximate guess work. However, our committee takes it as an exact science, (because they paid an outside company to prepare it so they assume it must be gospel), and they simply take the amount fo money shown in the plan and put that amount into the Sinking Fund and ignore making a R & M budget.
Strataspheric
February 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm
KEEP THIS FORUM PERMANENT!!!
The Strata Laws: Online Consultation should remain as a permanent fixture and a meeting place for strata dwellers (owners, investors, tenants) to become aware of issues and exchange ideas. While Flat Chat exist as part of the Domain part of Sydney Morning Herald (I think) it is not that well known and privately controlled. The Department of Fair Trading can sponsor this site and let it be an ongoing "blog" or place to find answers and ask questions from the many talented people who have already contributed greatly to this site. It will also act as a bellwether for government authorities to become aware of new issues and changing trends straight from those affected, rather than via biased reporting from CTTT or newspapers. Think about it, Mr. Minister.
michael chacha
February 15, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Spot On I agree
Totally Agree
Strataspheric
February 9, 2012 at 8:31 am
FAIR TRADING TO DEVELOP STRATA EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS ON YOUTUBE
The Office of Fair Trading, responsible for strata legislation and CTTT can use the likes of YouTube or develop its own channel of short educational videos relating to all issues in strata schemes and legislation.
With the assistance of a professional production house, legal consultants and realistic locations and actors, any number of videos (You Tube limits videos to about 10 minutes) can be developed about any subject imaginable:
Let us let a look at a few: Video on renting a flat, signing a lease, how to get repairs done, behaving in a strata scheme (both for owners and tenants), the various by-laws and their meaning.
Training videos for executive committee members on how to hold meeting, how to call meetings, how to present the accounts of a scheme, responsibility to repair (s.62). How to buy and sell a flat (the legal requirements).
There can be a whole host of videos on how to approach the CTTT and its various branches, how to fill in forms, how to write submissions and make and present admissable evidence, the list just go on and on.
Such videos can be used by anyone with a mobile phone to a desktop computer, by members of executive committees preparing for meetings or understanding how to better run a scheme.
It can teach the rudiments of the strata act and its obligations, do I need to say more. A proper budget for such a project and good promotion of its benefits will save tenants and owners (especially ones that english is not their first language) a lot of money and disputation and can become a resource that anyone can turn to.
More and more people live in strata schemes and rent in strata schemes, they pay rates and taxes but are poorly served by the government.
Strataspheric
February 9, 2012 at 10:35 am
LETTER FROM MINISTER OF FAIR TRADING OFFICE RE REVIEW PROCESS”
THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE WITH THE MINISTERS OFFICE IS PUBLISHED HERE: THIS FORUM IS ONLY THE BEGINNING AND YOU CAN PUT YOUR NAME ON A LIST TO BE NOTIFIED OF FUTURE PROGRESS.
Anna Ellis
February 10, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Independent public policy think-tank
I am on a property which has only 2 units operating under Strata Laws and of which I am the owner of one of the two. I have encountered many difficulties in obtaining agreement with the owner of the other unit (who lives interstate so this unit is an investment property) and with the present Strata Manager.
I am aware that the Strata Manager can be changed but this is not easy where choices are limited in a Regional area. In my situation, the owner of the second unit has appeared many time to be dis-interested in the day-to-day issues of building maintenance and the maintenance of the common areas of the property. With an attitude like this can only lead to lengthy and possibly fruitless attendances at mediation sessions or worse still, expensive court actions.
There has to be a solution available to people in such circumstances to reduce the painstaking time in trying to achieve compromising results and at the same time, thus avoiding all the frustrations that are encountered along this very difficult road. In order to keep pace with the maintenance requirements that occur from time to time, I have paid money out of my own pocket to maintain both my unit in good condition and in the common areas so that this is at all times safe and presentable.I have had to do this because of insufficient funds being available in the Sinking Fund. My letters to the owner of the second unit remain, mostly, unanswered so no progress is ever made.
The Strata Manager appears to be only interested in getting their fees and not providing any sensible/acceptable advice. At the AGM’s, over the years, the agenda provides only for those regulatory items and any other issues that I have tried to raise in General Business goes unheard as the Presiding Officer makes statements such as – "I have to go now, I don’t want to hear any more – any concerns should be taken up with the Dept.of Fair Trading." So where does one go or do in such a circumstance. With such an attitude, my voice is not heard at the meeting designed to bring issues forward for debate or discussion.
Unfortunately, it has been the Presiding Officer who holds a Proxy for the other owner. So it is simply me against the Presiding Officer with a Proxy. I have received some guidance from the Dept.of Fair Trading but difficulties still remain. The drama and trauma that I have had to endure in these circumstances are just untenable and corrections to the laws appear long overdue.
My thoughts are that when there are only two units on any property development being proposed when in the planning stages, the Government regulations should allow only Torrens Title to be applied, full stop. I thank you for this opportunity for the "little person" to be heard and to voice my opinion on this very important aspect of law.
Strataspheric
February 14, 2012 at 10:40 am
Reply to you…
I posted a reply to you which is a few headlines below. its name is "can I be of help?". You may contact me through that, I hope I can be of assistance.
ilovebbg
February 10, 2012 at 6:08 am
What I see to be improved in the Strata Law
Lately, there has been a drama within our own small mix strata complex (i.e commercial and residential strata plan). For those residential owners, we are all first home owners and came from non-English Speaking countries, while the commercial Aussie owner took our weak points and take advantages from us.
Without any quorum in a EGM or agreement from majority of the owners, a new strata agent who is a friend of the commercial lot owner was assigned to take over our complex. A Strata Agency Agreement was signed and seal with the commercial lot owner only without consent to any other lot owners or ECs (his lot was subdivided into two lots not long ago), therefore he signed twice on the agreement and consider himself as two owners. We later found out about all these and was advised by a 3rd party strata agent that the agreement was invalid due to it clearly didn’t meet the Strata Act 1997 s238, which is clear and simple stating at least two owners of ECs needs to sign the Agreement. We confirm with Fair Trading, called the strata agent and telling them that what they doing is wrong. Unfortunely we got ignored, the agent just won’t pass the keys and books back to the ECs, after months fighting back and forward through Leagal Advise, Fair Trading, communicating with the MP and local council, now we are now finally up to the stage of CTTT.
Therefore it brings to my attention that: an agent can be so easily enter to a strata scheme however it took the owners months to get back what belongs to them, wouldn’t it be a little unfair?!! Espeially now more strata schemes are being developed as lands are more expensive and people couldn’t affort a house. Wouldn’t it be more cases like ours in the future? As the immigrants entering Australia and who have absolute no knowledge of what strata is all about?!
I do believe the government needs to promote the Strata Legislation and make it more fair to avoid any more vitims like us. And the process when handling our case was away too complicated and time consuming.
MargS
February 10, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Suggestions for Amendments
inner city resident
February 12, 2012 at 3:59 am
required new/changes to State laws
Owner's Concerns
February 13, 2012 at 3:22 am
Changes to proxy laws
1. CHANGES TO PROXY LAWS.
The most important change should be –
I). Executive Committee members should not be allowed to hold any proxies. Stop the "power and control" that comes when one member "farms" day and night until she has at least 22-25 votes with only at most 10 other owners present to vote.
Proxies are usually obtained from investor owners who don’t come to meetings or very young or aged and seemingly don’t read the financial statements.
Owners that attend AGM’s and EGM’s are dwindling as they do not see the point when the proxies to one person are so high and the rest of concerned owners are out-voted in any case.
II). No owner should be allowed more than a minimum number of
proxies ie. 1 (or perhaps 2) to stop some members of the Executive Committee manipulating those holding proxies.
SUGGESTION:: Do not have proxy votes at all. Owners either
living in the strata block or not should either attend meetings to vote on issues or they do not get a vote at all.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
I). No two people from the same family should be allowed to sit on
the Executive Committee together, particularly in the position of Chairman and Treasurer, even though they may own 2 units in the same block.
This again is power and control for their own self-interests.
3. STRATA MANAGEMENTS
Strata Managers who are engaged to do a job should be allowed to proceed without the constant harrassment by any person on the Executive Committee not allowing the strata manager to make even the smallest of day to day decisions without first seeking acceptance by that one Committee Member, particularly for quotes, speaking with tradesmen and overseeing the work being done.
4. CHANGES TO DISPUTE PROCESS
MEDIATION is fine as long as both sides will mediate and the defenders not decide on the day they that they will not as they are unhappy with the questions for mediation after owners/applicants have taken time off work to appear.
TRIBUNAL Should be open as in a court of law where both sides can present the facts as they are.
Presently there is no way of knowing the true facts by written submission as the panel may find it difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction. The adjudicator then makes a judgement which is totally incorrect.
It would probably not be any more time consuming to have an open hearing and a decision could be made in a much quicker time with a fairer, truthful outcome.
We do hope these are clear suggestions for the changing and possisble revamping of Strata Laws. It unfortunately taken only one person the ruin the peace and enjoyment of a strata home.
michael chacha
February 16, 2012 at 1:41 pm
I agree n Disagree with the comments
I agree with most of your comments accept the Strata Manager point, I am a committee Member, and I want to keep the "bastards honest" Strata Managers generally speaking are gouging the Owners Corp funds With their Kick back tradies, their 20% commission for insurance and their support of those who continually breach the regs.. they are in it for the money.
Find a corrupt Strata Manager Take him to Court , the Agreement will generally have that the Owners Corp pays the Court Costs of the Strata Manager.. an 8 hour day in Court ..There goes $1000.
If you know of an honest Strata Manager..Please advise I would really appreciate it.
Rgds M
Strataspheric
February 13, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Can I help?
I have already written on this forum that the OFT should keep it permanent as a meeting place for people like you to ask questions and maybe helped by others. You may also look at the forum of Flat Chat which is a private forum for strata issues and post questions there, someone may give you good advice. You might wish to connect as my name is artusan at the bigpond dot com. I may be able to direct you in the right direction. Your issues are typical of a major complaint, and that is that most strata managers are more trouble that they are worth and sometimes worse.
strataliving
February 14, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Changes to sinking fund
It is mandatory to prepare a 10 year plan for the sinking fund for maintenance and repairs but it does not require the owner’s corporation to make any contributions to the sinking fund. For example, the owner’s corporation can ignore the ten year plan altogether and make no contribution to the sinking fund and use a special levy to raise money for all repairs.
oldvalues
February 20, 2012 at 3:41 am
tenants water usage
All owners who use the property as an investment should pay a minimum fee for the water usage of their tenants. Even if it’s $20. My neighbours frequently hose down the concrete area which they use to entertain. We don’t yet have separate meters.
Chartwell
February 14, 2012 at 5:58 am
Community Title
1.I agree that the use of proxies is a major problem. Each owner should be limited to holding a maximum of 5% of the total lots, including their own. In addition the EC should be limited to holding a maximum of 10%. This would be the sum of all proxies held by EC members. The problem is that the EC can farm enough proxies so that they can gain approval at an AGM for any motions they have placed on the agenda. This can happen even if the majority of owners attending the meeting do not agree.
2. The legislation needs to stop developers writing into the management statement that the owners have the responsibilty to maintain such utilities as water and electricity. I live in a complex which has private roads and the developer did some deal with the Water Board and Electricity supplier that we do not know about. The result was that we are now responsible for all the maintenance of these utilities on the private roads. This is unreasonable as with both of these you need specialised people and expertise to maintain the utilities.
3. There is no mention in the Community Land Management Act regarding the installation of green friendly items such as solar panels. Currently approval of such things may or may not be subject to EC approval, depending what is in the by-laws. The Act needs to make clear that approval must be given.
4. The Act needs to clarify who is responsible for traffic regulation on private roads. We keep getting switched between local council and RTA.
Patricia Reed
February 14, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Strata Insurance Loophole & Landscaping Issues
I would like to raise the issues of shared strata insurance, and shared landscaping responsibilities.
My 91 year old father owns a 5 year old free standing villa, on a two dwelling strata title.
For the past two years the owner of the property in front of him, has been involved in a marital dispute, and has used that as an excuse for refusing to pay his share of the strata building insurance, leaving my father to pay the entire policy for both properties, which has been just over a $1000 per year. The policy is due for renewal in early March 2012, and the saga appears set to continue.
Whilst the insuring company is sympathetic to his situation, they refuse to allow my father to only cover his own policy.
On checking with Fair Trading, it would appear that legally when there are only two (2) freestanding dwellings are on a strata title, they can be separately insured, but the problem is that no insurance company will do it, because of the shared common driveway. Trust me when I say I have spent many, many hours on the phone with brokers and other companies to NO avail!
Also, the other owner has had a passing parade of less than desirable tenants in his property, who have progressively destroyed what origially was very attractive landscaping. All that remains now is a bleak garden of weeds, an overgrown half dead lawn, untrimmed hedges, overflowing garbage bins, childrens toys and bikes discarded in the garden bed, and an overgrown driveway. He has also allowed trees on his property to grow unchecked to the point they are now over the roof and gutters of my father’s property. He refuses to respond to my calls to cut them back.
The upshot is that the value of my father’s property is beng seriously impacted, by the lack of attention to the gardens in the front property, and common areas of landscaping. I recently paid to have the driveway shrubs trimmed back, as they were impacting on being able to negotiate the driveway in a car. My father’s property has been sitting vacant, as we have been unable to find a tenant willing to rent due to the poor first impression they get from the front villa, despite my fathers property being immaculate!
The owner refuses to communicate with my father and I; will not return calls and has moved away from the area, and I do not have a contact other than his mobile phone number. The tenants in his property will not tell me who they are renting through, so I do not know how to contact him or serve papers.
The insurance company tells me that this is not an uncommon problem where elderly people get exploited by this insurance loophole, and I would ask the Govt Review committee to consider finding a way to enforce that an insurance company MUST allow an individual in this situation to be able to only pay their own share of insurance.
This man knows my father will not leave his property un-insured, therefore, by default, is covered when Dad has to pay both premiums. This loophole needs to be addressed sooner than later.
Any suggestions how I enforce the replacement of common landscaping and be re-imbursed for monies already spent to tidy thigs up ? I’m utterly fed up with the clumsy laws of this State, and how slowly the wheels of NSW Govt. turn!
I begin to understand why the Mafia preferred knee – capping as a swift and effective means of sorting things out!
The Hon Anthony Roberts
February 15, 2012 at 12:38 am
Feedback vital for strata regulatory reform
Reforming the strata and community scheme laws is a big and challenging task. Unlike the previous Government, which put these issues in the ‘too hard’ basket, the NSW Liberals & Nationals Government is determined to get it right. The sector will only continue to grow and develop if we provide a regulatory framework that supports innovation, reduces red tape and sets clear rules for everyone involved.
I have read a lot of the comments and I am happy to see so many constructive suggestions have been put forward for how the law could be improved. Parking, pets, proxies and passive smoking are some of the recurring topics which were only to be expected. However, I have been pleasantly surprised by the breadth of issues the forum has helped to identify.
Many of those leaving comments have done so on multiple occasions or in response to issues or ideas raised by others. This type of positive interaction between stakeholders would not have been possible using more traditional consultation methods.
However, it is easy in a process like this to focus on the negatives. There are no doubt provisions in the legislation which are working fine and do not need to be changed. I am equally keen to hear about the good bits of the law as well.
The Hon Anthony Roberts MP is the NSW Minister for Fair Trading. Prior to becoming the Member for Lane Cove, he was Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Lane Cove Municipal Council. Anthony proudly served with the Australian Army on peace keeping operations in Bougainville as part of Operation Bel Isi. He was also an adviser to Prime Minister John Howard.
Strataspheric
February 16, 2012 at 9:48 am
Response to the minister.
The Honourable Mr Anthony Roberts,
The Strata Schemes Management Act and its predecessor The Strata Titles Act had built into them an institution and a process that was intended to be good, should be good and can be well functioning. It intended to operate as the European style investigative magistrate who asks the questions and forms an opinion as to the relative positions of the adversaries, consider the provision of the legislation and try to dispence not just procedural law, but a measure of reasonable justice and conclusion. As a matter of fact, courts of Petty Sessions operate much the same way. The Minister wants to hear of the good points, and that is one of them. The Minister is encouraged to read the provisions of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act and the way it should operate, i.e. financially accessible, legally informal with some tolerance to the rules of evidence, etc.
The Minister is encouraged to read the submissions and hearings of the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice held towards the end of 2011 and to reform the CTTT so that it operates as intended. (The minister has probably done so already).
It must meet the following requirements:
1. Reasonalby prices (it still is at $76 or so for application).
2. Informal: that will be achieved if an open court is used as was the case with the Strata Titles Commission previous to 1996. Adjudication in writing only should be only on minor matters or a choice. Owners Corporation may choose to submit in writing to save time, while owners can represent themselves by turning up on the appointed day.
3. Mediation should be an option. That is, any side can refuse it to facilitate a hearing and save time. Adversaries who are disadvantaged by any mean should be encouraged to be represented by "friends of the Court" rather than lawyers.
4. The quality of adjudicators should be upgraded to equivalent to magistrates. While the government is saving some money on wages (I earn more in wages as a tradesman that the CTTT advertise for part time adjudicators) for peanuts you get monkeys. But worse than that the litigants lose a fortune due to the incompetence of the tribunal and its cumbersomeness.
5. Yes, the CTTT is a good idea. Give it some teeth, make it like a court of petty sessions, give it good quality people and make it efficient and you have fulfilled a major part of your job as minister for fair trading.
Kathy Trelease
February 15, 2012 at 4:02 am
Managing the building fabric
Congratulations on this initiative;
Two issues of strata living I have encountered:
1. Currently there is no formal system to manage the following issues with the building fabric;
This is particularly important for older , smaller strata schemes.
And
2. A simple system for recovering strata fees from owners who are clearly in default. Currently, a long and arduous court battle is required. This should not be necessary when payment of strata fees is not discretionary. A dispute and claim against with the body corporate should only be possible if the owners levies are paid up ( or similar condition. )
CCLCNSW
February 16, 2012 at 2:55 am
Strata Laws Online
Strata Laws Online Consultation – 15 Dec 2011 to 29 Feb 2012
Case Study 1
Case Study 2
Cancer Council NSW Tobacco Control Unit
February 16, 2012 at 3:54 am
Stronger protection against smoke drift required
The risks to health from second-hand tobacco smoke exposure are well documented in the medical literature. After all, tobacco smoke contains an estimated 4,000 chemical compounds including 66 carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified second-hand smoke as a Group 1 carcinogen (as is asbestos). Smoke-free public place and workplace laws are based on recognition of the serious health impacts of second-hand smoke exposure.
At Cancer Council NSW most of the passive smoking-related public enquires we receive from the general public are from people seeking advice on what they can do about tobacco smoke drifting into their homes from other parts of the apartment blocks in which they live.
One remedy available to those who live in strata scheme housing is to encourage their owners’ corporation to adopt a by-law that would, in effect, eliminate second-hand smoke from the entirety of a property. We are aware that the legality of this approach has been validated in at least two legal cases in NSW. However, under current strata legislation, barriers exist for many who would otherwise pursue this remedy. Such barriers include:
· An apparent lack of awareness of some owners’ corporations that action can be taken under strata laws to address the problem of smoke drift
· The requirement for a 75 per cent majority vote of owners to pass a by-law
· A tenant will require the permission of their landlord to be eligible to vote at a strata meeting and so will not necessarily be able to use this remedy
· Strata laws do not explicitly acknowledge the desirability of strong measures to prevent second-hand smoke exposure
· The strata complaints process appears to be characterised by inconsistent decision making of the NSW Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal with regard to the problem of smoke drift.
Cancer Council NSW provides the following suggestions for improvements in Strata laws to address the problem of second-hand smoke exposure in strata schemes:
· Strata schemes legislation should provide definitions of ‘nuisance’ and ‘hazard’ for the purposes of the legislation, recognising that second-hand tobacco smoke is both a nuisance and serious health hazard
· Related to the above point, the legislation should explicitly establish that any tobacco smoke that drifts into any residential lot a person owns, leases or rents is a hazard for the purposes of the legislation
· Include a smoking-related model by-law in the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2010 (Part 9.27, Schedules 2 – Model by-laws for residential strata schemes)
· Smoking-related Orders should be included in Chapter 5, Part 4 (Orders of Adjudicator) of the Strata Scheme Schemes Management Act 1996.
· Adopt in law the recommendation of the Commonwealth Government-appointed National Preventive Health Taskforce that:
All state governments … legislate to require leases for multi-unit apartment buildings and condominium sales agreements to include the terms governing smoking
· Introduce a requirement that all new strata developments comprise sections of developments that are subject to mandatory smoke-free environment rules.
Strata law and related judicial processes need to exhibit recognition of the public health and civil benefits of preventing involuntary second-hand smoke exposure in residential settings.
michael chacha
February 17, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Four Major areas for consideration/ Strata Reform
To progress and to Legislate Effectiveily the Suggestions I have noted below will be the Domain of the Lawmakers, a great deal of the suggestions will be difficult to enforce, the system in its present form is uneneforceable due to issues of Civil Liberties etc there needs to be an effective system of fines and penalties introduced, but crucially owners of Apartments should be far more proactive and involved for any real changes and or benefits for any determinable progress into the future. Its complex and has its difficulties, its the owners with the Legislation Guidelines who can make the System work successfully. ITS an EXTREMELY LONG READ, I hope there are many valid and useful ideas for reform in this posting.
After reading many of the comments by fellow Strata Owners it is apparent that the Strata System in its present form requires a judicious assessment for reform. The majority of the comments / issues fall into certain categories. I have identified four areas that need to be considered.I have owned a Strata Unit for 8 years, like many others on these pages I have observed an incredible amount of waste, poor management etc etc.
Some observations:
The SSMA Legislation appears to have been written with the consideration that all owners i.e. occupiers and investors, will be interested and involved in the Maintenance, Improvements of their Strata Plan and abide by the proper procedures outlined in the Legislation by all members of the Owners Corporation. Its predicated on the basis that owners want to preserve the quality of their asset, like a home owner, and there lies a major problem. Its a "shared" system that can only succeeed as long as the owners having a reasonable knowledge of the Legislation (a basic outline is sufficient) and to have a proactive approach to their Scheme. Majority of Owners have no idea of the Regulations, are too busy, do not want involvement prefer anonymity, its politics, are lazy, own a unit for ease, pay their Levies therefore "all will be taken care of", a plethora of excuses, but fundamently they have very little knowledge of the Regulations or procedures. This area needs to be remedied, the owners should be made aware of their rights and obligations under the Act and to make positive contributions to their respective schemes.
One Suggestion for Reform. There should be an introduction of a Legal Mechanism added to every Contract of Sale as a condition of such Contracts an ATTACHMENT to be included in the Contract, outlining in simple to understand language a basic outline of the Regulations, By Laws of the Strata Schemes Management Act, Common Property Issues, the Rights and Obligations of future Owners. The prospective purchaser must READ and Sign the Attachment, otherwise the Contract will be deemed Null and Void. Knowledge of the Act is CRUCIAL.
Owners should be required to attend at least one Annual General Meeting every two years, failure to attend (written explanation of why cannot attend a meeting, sick relative, urgent business etc) will result in a fine, one comment noted suggesting an infringement system a la speeding Fines or Parking Tickets should be introduced, the Funds to be deposited in the Sinking fund. An idea that should be explored. There is a need for deterents. Streamline the Procedures of Meetings.
Executive Committee Members
A similar concept should be introduced to Members of the Executive Committee, their role basically is to ensure that "they have to protect the best interests of all owners in the Scheme." There are too many "self interested" Exec Members, in many cases have delusions of grandeur, control freaks, are part timers, form their own power groups and usually are the biggest offenders . There are two on our Committee that are in Breach of Sec 65a 1-6, Sec 62, ByLaw 19 and other Regulations and they hold the balance of power. There should be a much harsher penalties levied on Exec Comm Members who knowingly breach the Regulations.
There should an offical Executive Committee Pledge signed and witnessed, a Legal Mechanism resulting in harsh financial penalties if contravened, not the weak points penalty system that we now have, its weak and does not deter breaches.
There are Exec Comm (in our case ) members who are ignorant of the Regulations, cunningly attempt to manipulate the Meetings Procedures and interpret the Act to suit their requirements. Clover Moore suggested that there should be a " Mandatory Exec Comm Training scheme to be explored for large Schemes." I agree but it should be extended to include all Strata Schemes that have more than 10 Apartments. Inactive Exec Committee Members. They join for the prestige, they join as they think that if there are repairs needed for their apartments they will be "first cab offf the rank.’ System of Favouritism and it isnt based on merit or the need of others. One case , two years waiting by an owner for a repair to a cracked glass window, the Secretary had his repaired in two days not 2 years. We have two Exec Comm Members who seldom (around 5% reply rate) reply to e mails, are always overseas, when they do reply to approve quotes it is apparent that they do not properly assess the quotes, I am overseas I will not be contactable for a month and this is a regular occurance. They agree with their "BOSS" the Secretary on all issues, its the blind leading the blind. There should be some mechanism introduced that dismisses such non active Exec comm members. There is Legislation whereas the Owners Corp can dismiss an Exec Comm Member but with no involvement by owners how can one obtain the numbers required? It does not work.
A signed Pledge by Exec Comm Members that ensures Responsibility to other owners on a equal basis, that Exec Comm Members can be held accountable re negligence, improper conduct, breaches. Failure to comply with the Regulations to be enforceable with financial penalties that deter intentional wrongdoing . Quick dismissal of non active Comm Members. Knowledge of proper procedures and practices to be Mandatory. Exec Comm members should be held accountable. Nothing to worry about if one complies with the Regulations and has genuine intentions. A crucial member of the Executive committee is the Treasurer a PROACTIVE and Thorough Treasurer will save a Strata Scheme thousands of $$$.
Stop the REPAIR RORTS. My brother is a Tradie he loves Strata Scheme jobs he can charge 2 to 3 times more and the majority are in ripp off mode, two simple examples Garage door causing problems, Strata Manager obtains quote $1,200.Our non judicious exec comm approves, quote has no terms n conditions , no emergency call out fee, only to be supplied on request, I obtain a second quote $600 inc GST, finally obtained Emergency call out fee from the Rip off garage door crowd $430 per hour. Another example, emergency garage lighting problem Strata Manager Quote $700 my quote $350 . Strata Managers in this area (other areas also) are obtaining kick backs (majority) its common knowledge in the Building Industry. Contact Fair Trading 133220 certain "consultants" have told me that it is a "GIVEN" simply put , its CORRUPTION
Possible Solution. Two quotes for every build work no matter how large a Scheme may be. Strata Managers not to supply tradesmen AT ALL, there should be a Building Standard check list, providing estimate tradesmens costs per repair this to be placed on a website for all owners to access as an indication of costs n procedures. A record kept of all repairwork, a detailed description to be provided outlining completed work and materials used as part of the payment invoice, a record kept by the Body Corporate (not Strata manager) Executive Comm Treasurer and the owner in which the repair was effected, this to be kept as future reference in cae of inadequate work, its to stop "repeat repair offenders". Use Local tradesmen , in the larger Metropolitan Areas there are Local Papers with Tradies adverts, the internet is full of them , the yellow pages, Fair Trading should also provide a preferred Local tradesmens list for each area of Sydney, i.e. Eastern Suburbs , Northern beaches etc this will eliminate Travelling charges, one can also build up a rappor with your "local tradie"
For extremely large schemes: a suggestion only, allow sub committees who specialise in specific areas , i.e. A committee who deals only in repairs, a committee who specifically check the accounts and Levies, a committee who handle Common Property matters only etc etc. Just an idea.
Strata Managers roles should be limited to a few areas only
The best run and properly organised Strata Scheme that I have observed is in a Southern Beach suburb of Sydney, the majority of owners are retirees, they have time. THEY LIMIT THE ROLE OF THEIR STRATA MANAGER to PAPERWORK ONLY. Two quotes for every repair, once job is completed and the owners accept the work quality , they send the invoice to the S.Manager advising payment, they employ their own auditor to check the accounts every two years, they meet once a month or when required. They advise Strata Manager to obtain Insurance quotes but they have the right for determining their Insurance Policy as THEY OBTAIN THEIR OWN INSURANCE quote which is usually a more competitive quote. They have a Treasuer who was once an Accountant, he is thorough. Their Scheme is a similar size to the Scheme that I am involved in , their Yearly Strata fees are $15,000 less than my Scheme and they have $40,000 more in their Sinking Fund. My cousin owns an apartment in the block.
Insurance Commission to Strata Managers 10-20% is outrageous and should be eliminated. For a $10,000 premium the S.M obtains $2000 this is gouging its criminal and should be stamped out. The Insurance provider should allow such a commission to be passed onto the Owners Corp. an additional $2000 could be used for repairs, improvements etc. Of course the Agent (of GREED) will always advise the higher "SUGGESTED’ quote to an O.C. The higher the Premium the larger the Commission, for what a 5 MINUTE call a 5 minute Computer fillout form??? Its a rort.
Agents Disbursements. Another Rort, padded out and skimming is the norm. Paying an Agent to check your own records is another, ownes should not pay to access their SP records, potential buyers different story.
The regulation where an Executive Committee or an Owners Corp allows and or designate and empowrs a Strata Manager complete Control of the runnings etc of a Strata Scheme should be eliminated. Carte Blanche to the Strata Managers for easy skimming higher fees n expenses. Owners should have more control of their Scheme, be more responsible and more interested in their HOME UNITS. its their money. Allowing a Strata Manager to do whatever they want with your money is an invitation for corruption. No wonder Sinking Funds are so depleted. The Strata Community of Australia is a toothless watch dog. Its a joke, they support the Strata Managers not the owners.
The owners MONEY THE ACCOUNTS: Strata Managers have Accountants who do the Accounts and store this information on their computers.
If the Accounts are stored on the Strata Managers Computers then why cant there be a program in which owners of a SP can access their own accounts at any time day or week. ?There are computer programs that can easily provide this information to owners, certain access codes etc. THIS SHOULD BE COMPOULSORY FOR EVERY STRATA MANAGER take note Strata Community of Australia.
The relevant Authority should set up a special Strata Taskforce with powers to investigate and audit the Accounts and Records of Strata Schemes. There should be a hotline that disgruntled owners who have "genuine concerns with a Strata Manager" to lodge an anonymous complaint. The Taskforce should have access powers to enter and check the records of Strata Schemes held by Strata Managers, random and without warning. Harsh penalties with the powers to cancel Strata Managers Licences should be introduced. "Keep the B..t….s Honest" Harsh penalties for "missing" records" that were once kept by Strata Managers. Our scheme had 2 years go missing. The Taskforce should have a " success program" that allows bonuses to members of the Taskforce for a successful investigative performance. A percentage taked out of the Strata Managers fine to Fund the Bonuses.
Strata Managers should only have a Tenure of ONE YEAR ONLY to be reviewed yearly. There should also be a rating system for Strata Managers performance.
AGENCY AGREEMENT STRATA MANAGERS.
There are conditions that I believe are non binding and not lawful. An Example , The Agent gets his 20% Insurance Commission but if he makes a claim on behalf of the O.C. he obtains a fee of $145 +GST per hour. Cutting the Insurance Commission altogether will end this rort. its extremely simple to make an Insurance Claim Contact your insurance provider e.g CHU "hello I am an Exec Comm mem of SP 123456 can you connect me to the claims Dept". Bang .. You are transferred ," Hi the Sp is 123456 we have a defect issue please note that this is my phone number please advise the assessor of my contact details. " FINISHED in 5 minutes or less, the assessor will call you for an on site meeting. If the strata Manager does this 9 out of 10 he will NOT BE ON SITE. You are whacked for $145 +gst..errrrr
There is a a contentious andd extremely unconscionable clause in our Strata Managers Agreement and that is if the Strata Manager has to attend (outside his terms of the agreement) Court cases, make Insurance claims………. etc etc that the Agent will recieve a fee of $145=gst per hour."The clause goes on and on and is very thorough it notes almost everything that you can think of, but the main sticking point is that " if an Owners Corp commences a legal action against a Strata Manager , the Strata Manager is paid a fee of $145=gst to attend court , this fee is paid by the Owners Corp who are taking the Strata Manager to Court..ITS ABSURD. In many instances I have requested the Strata Manager by e mail to provide a Notice to Comply to a fellow owner who is in breach ..No reply. There must be a" three and your out" fine system levied on the Strata Manager for non replies. There should be a Statutory Requirement requiring Strata managers to reply with 7 days, failure to do so, should result in a fine. This is frustrating and deters progress on important matters. There needs to be a compulsory referesher course i.e. Regulations By Laws as per Strata Managers knowledge of the SSMA 96, Strata Managers are required to attend, once every two or three years.
An Employee of a Strata Manager/ officer should not be burdened with more than 40 Strata Schemes that he or she should manage, once they exceed that amount they simply cannot efficiently manage their folios.. Its too much for any one person , it creates a system that is inefficient and does not provide a quality service to owners. Employees in this area of Managing Strata Properties should not be on a part time basis.
Sinking Fund Trust Account
A Sinking Fund trust fund should NOT be managed by a Strata Manager, this should be controlled by the owners of the Scheme i.e. Treasurer and a non Committee member (an owner) the two can only access the Funds with dual signatures and have to provide written submission to all owners for approval to withdraw funds etc etc. A requirement of 50% of owners for approval. I know of one Strata Scheme where the Sinking Fund recieves LESS THAN 1% interest per year, this is under the control of the Strata Manager. Something is drastically wrong, its extremely fishy, on a Sinking Fund Trust Account for $10,000 the yearly interest is $50. It smells of a kickback. The Treasurer should be able to set up a Trust account with an interest component of at least 4.5%. Any suggestions??/ Public Trustee??/
Clover Moore has noted that the "CTTT should have powers to set aside such unconscionable Strata Managers Contracts", I completely agree but I would like to add the CTTT should have the authority to cancel Strata Managers Licences if found guilty of illegal activities.
Weak and Ineffective unenforceable Strata Regulations as per SSMA 96 and Amendments
So many have written about this area and its extremely crucial that the Legislation has some real teeth with bite, as they stand the Regulatory System with the slap on the wrist penalties are fatally flawed weak and ineffective , it relies on Public Servants who people have ccomplaints, not withstanding that the Office of Fair Trading advisory contact 133220 is an exceptional service, outside of this Dept Fair Trading is a non player when it comes to obtaining fair and equitable results. An example, if an owner applies for mediation for resolution n or discussion with a fellow owner, he pays the fee and attends the designated venue and his fellow owner IS A NO SHOW then what happens? Does the non attendant recieve a fine?/ I think the answer is No.. Maybe a Local Magistrate or a more effective Court established, if the System is effective the money that can be saved could easily finance a better structure / system.
Strataspheric
February 18, 2012 at 6:53 am
FAIR TRADING TO ASSIST OC ON COMPLIANCE
More than 60% of strata schemes are still self managed, that is to say they have no managing agent. The reasons for that are that most schemes are still small schemes (the average size 10 flats) and only 3% are large schemes of 100+ flats. The other main reasons is the expense and shocking service that managing agents provide. (There should be a royal commission into the strata management industry, they are worse than real estate agents and second hand car dealers).
A large number of them are successfully managed by volunteers who are honest and well meaning, but are not always knowledgeable enough about the myriad rules and regulations and sections of the SSMA regarding presentation of accounts, conduct at meetings, etc. When trouble starts at a scheme like this, these volunteers (and I managed a scheme for 10 years till one lot in a small scheme that never paid levies and caused endless trouble decided to start third world war about petty compliance with forms and procedures) may find themselves in a legal battle out of their own pockets that can send them broke.
I have already suggested on this site that the Office of Fair Trading creates educational videos on youtube or its own channel on how to run a scheme, how to run meetings, what forms accounts and reports should be in, etc. etc.
The Office of Fair Trading can also open a site in which will present sample documents of a typical 10 lot scheme with levy notices, annual accounts, forms of motions, sample letters re breaches of by-laws and any other documentation that owners corporations are required to keep by law.
It will be a great help to those 30,000 executive committees, owners corporations, etc that a self managed. An investment such as this will save a lot of grief later. The Office of Fair Trading can advise ALL schemes in NSW about such site by writing to them directly using land titles records.
petlover
February 19, 2012 at 6:16 am
strata and pets
I came from the UK to Australia 6 years ago. I am a vet and when looking for a rental with a cat offered double bond and was turned down so many times. I think we are a very sad society if we can allow 30% of pets at one centre to have to be there due to landlords/agents not allowing pets.
I believe that strata laws that ban pets are being discriminatory it is like asking about color, religion etc and then not allowing those population groups. I can understand that one cannot have a large dog in a small units etc so within reason, or a barking dog all day so common sence must prevail but the default should be allow. Also the question of do you have a pet should not be allowed – is like asking color , religion, sexual preference.
If strata allows pets then landlords would have to allow it. If a prestigious group like the Meriton allows pets that should be telling landlords something
Countless studies have shown that pets keep people healthy, made them happier and are of benefit for older people, there are so many more reasons which can be seen in numerous studies done. So it benefits soceity to have healthier and happier people with less burden on the healthcare system.
From a financial point it has been shown that strata that allows pets can get more value for their homes. Generally speaking pet owners are a caring bunch and would look after property-there is always a few bad apples but that is in all sectors.
I have seen many rants of how pets destored lawns etc but I am sure many lawns/houses have been destroyed by people.
If there is fear of damage and I can understand then take extra bond to cover it, most pet owners will have no problem with it.
THis discrimination of pet owners and the needless DEATH of these poor pets should be stopped.
plazable
February 20, 2012 at 5:17 am
Q2. Can you see any future issues that need to be addressed
Background
plazable
February 20, 2012 at 5:22 am
Appointed Strata Managing Agent
What person sits down and reads the Act, regulations and other things that govern the way we live? The Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 and all the periphery that go with it is long and complex. People have a problem that they want resolved, but who consults all this stuff? Why can’t it be easier?
plazable
February 20, 2012 at 5:27 am
Change the law
Another issue is that, in appointing an Strata Managing Agent there appears to be no requirement for a formal process of handover/takeover. Sure the incoming agent picks up all the archive boxes and the Trust Account but there seems to have been no accounting from the old to the new Administrator of the files (both electronic and paperbased), the issues, the long and expensive list of building works that have yet to see the light of day (and touted in my block as being urgent and mooted to cost in excess of $5,000,000).
plazable
February 20, 2012 at 5:32 am
Change the Law
Should strata schemes be allowed to have the mix of residential, hotel and holiday apartments – or should they be either one or the other. I believe that the scheme I am in should be wound up and the hotel and private holiday letting business be required to either sell out of their investments or buy out the residential owners at fair market value of a purely residential building.
ckofsydney
February 29, 2012 at 5:16 am
Change the law
Strata Schemes or more specifically lot owners should be allowed to use their lots, or change use, as they see fit provided they dont cause any undue disturbance to other lot owners, with the approval of the owners corporation.For example, i believe, if the majority of lot owners permit short term residnetial letting, then it should be permitted. Likewise if the majority of owners dont want short term letting then it should be outlawed. This vote can occur every say 5 years? Buildings change and giving the OC the power to change the use overcomes the issue. Those who dont comply could be fined for by law breaching.
Either way a document should outline how the builing operates like a " lifestyle statement " so owners know what type of building they are buying into this lifestyle statement can also include the StrataHistory of the building with other valuable documentation for transparency.All of this could be online.
Within the lifestyle statement owners corporations can outline how they want their building to operate.ie Primarily for Investment, Primarily Owner occupier say with elderly, it could even be an open minded building, pet friendly, etc. etc
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 12:35 am
Poor Drafting and use of lexicon and the neglect of correctly dr
Disputes: O M G read the blogs. These occur due largley to the ambiguity of drafters lacking skills and basic knowledge of community ot strata living. Some have never put a foot on a strata title property
Dear oh dear! We no longer have Capital Punishment; so why put up with rubbbish that impacts on high density living and everyones health?
Many of us can draft such documents and would enjoy it, howevr even ‘hard-copy’ from the Min for F T gives information to you as if you are inept of ill-educated and have no T F or OC or EC experience.
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 12:39 am
Why bother?
Being pushed for time many at the office use their employers’ IT software and hardware ‘ at no cost to them. All matter of email etc is via this and so we see employers exploited.
Minister:- Please define ”” deem to be time wasting ””. If any client who employes a professional and pays them expects respect as a base line. Sadly but very true, SM treat their employers i.e. ‘ a Strata Corp. ‘ with distain and contempt.
It is high time Legislation existed wherin and wherby O C ‘ MAY NAME AND SHAME ‘ S M firms and sight reasons in the media.
O C & E C Members fall into a trap of their own making. They place these SM on a ‘magic-carpet’ and exhault them…”” Oh they are experts in all fields ”” we will do what you tell us to do.
Just how stupid is the mind-set to go along with this. I have been told by the owner of a S M Company ‘ we are nothing more than glorified accountants and can given you details of The Strata Act. ‘
Is it wise to change S M after every 5 – 6 years or retain low professional performances? If your tooth is hurting …see a dentist to rectify it.
To whom is best to rectify S M problems? F T gets results but too complex?
AN OMBUDSMAN dealing directly in this arena would greatly assist I strongly suggest. What do others think please?
Richard White
February 21, 2012 at 4:04 am
By-Laws
Thankyou for opportunity to contribute to the review in a small way.
My main concern after 30 years as Chairman of my body corporate is the breaking of the Strata By-Laws by some of the occupants from time to time, which can cause stress to the lives of the residents.
These Laws are for the peaceful enjoyment and the orderly functioning for the benefit of the occupants [owners/tenants] living in strata units. Generally the Body Corporate or their Managing Agents act on the behalf of residents.
I believe these By-Laws [regulations] be strictly adhered to, for the good management & peaceful enjoyment of the residents. Greater penalties should apply to the non-compliance of these By-Laws & more easily enforced than at present.
Also owners who rent their units should pay a surcharge of 10% to their levies [maintenance & sinking funds] to the Body Corporate.
SydneyLeaf
February 21, 2012 at 5:16 am
Smoking – why is it allowed in strata units?
I have struggled for years with 2 smokers who smoke underneath my apartment, each lives in a different unit . Their smoke drifts up and makes my place smell of smoke. They argue it is "their right" do do what they want in their apartment. I have tried the CTT. All I seemed to get was a lecture on how I should adjust to "communal living" and the burden of proof seemed so high to prove that it was impacting on my level of enjoyment of my unit.
It really seems ridiculous that smoking is allowed in a strata building.
In my mind strata buildings by default should be non smoking buildings, in private and common areas. Then the strata if they want can have a vote to change that if they see fit. At the moment it is the wrong way around, people are allowed to smoke and you have to fight the CTT or strata to get them to stop.
SydneyLeaf
February 21, 2012 at 5:36 am
Renters & Strata Committee
I feel if someone has rented for 1 year or over, they should be able to attend and vote at strata committee meetings. Often the decsions impact the renters, and often the renters would like to contribute their time and effort positively.
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Renters & Strata Committee
I agree.Some I knoe have rented for 5-8 yrs. Know the place ‘as home’. Currently they can attend, but sadll con’t vote.
Minister. This need to change. Great expertise exist on-site, but neglected or nor even made aware of.
We have a ‘Common News Sheet ‘. Some space is given to residents specific..if they want it.
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Confidentiality & ID being lost or stolen
With advanced IT and E-Communication all owners and residents are at risk of being ‘hacked into‘ by very >>IT savy persons <<.
E.g:- In a general conversation with a itinerant owner I was informed that the online sites I was visiting were diverse and some-what interesting and why did I go to….[ name os site withheld by me for specific reasons ]..as it was explicit and not theraputic ? And did I know I did not have a security password?
To my amazement this person told me he had viewed my computer in total;and the he was head person of P S A Computer Network and VERY …’swithced-on IT wise ‘. This person had in fact used his advanced IT work related skills to invade my privacy. Little did he know the other party to my computer is a very highly advanced IT party who built my computer and could ‘trace his invasion for me’. My password had been ‘hacked’ however there was provision to stop at a certin point as it was in-built. :)) Joke was on the first owner.
Point is, all such persons can and well may invade and take advantage of persons in a community or strata setting. The existing legislation to protect us; ”’as we think it does”’ can only do so IF suspected instances are reported. Actual proof may be very hard.
Just make sure if you are new to the IT networks and not having some skills, be careful to obtain them and keep a good password. If not your total ID and stored information data can / may be stolen I suggest. Such an event that did happen to me was made known to others in the small strata block in face to face conversations.
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Do all EC have to ”cc” others on matters?
O C & E C can restrict their email address being open to all. That is their right and some site reasons of ‘lack of time to read and or not interested so don’t include me’ Fine up to a point. If constant disputes on-site are not resolved and SM do not act as requested the entire block can loose and suffer capital loss.
Racial issues do exist;hard to prove as many are ‘covert in nature’. Lack of respect and ‘name-calling’ and personality issues do exist by virtue of dealing with other humans. That is a clinical fact of life.
Moving on:– Some EC who are in the common email system of contact do not live on-site. I suggest they are at a great disadvantage in that, day-to-day matters needing resolution, take time and added work on E C members who do live on-site. With the best of intentions informing other E C you even get abused ”’ we know who is ill ”’ + + + and such matters do undermine total EC Duty of Care under the act I suggest. Have you had this happen to you?
SM don’t want to become involved. When two or three EC do ‘cc’ some and exclude others on matters, and if required to be voted on latter [ E G M wise ] the matter had been decided prior to the meeting and IF you are the one excluded you vote is of no real importance and no discusion takes place. You have been ‘side-lined’.
Is this the right method or ought legislation be changed that all E C persons can never be excluded from email cc by the S M or EC members? Please comment / suggestions welcome.
I have excluded other EC persons and stated explicit rational logical reasons for doing so. The SM has been informed to act on making Work Orders and responds[ even when knowing all matters as explained in cc rounds ] this person was not included. How perverse can you be?
QUESTION:- Why own a dog and bark for it?
Numbers are vital in vote terms. However ‘they must needs-be stacked’ in many areas so we can all move on I suggest. Some OC and EC are totally dysfunctual due to existing methods of strata living and community lots. Some follow one person as if they ”” know all things great and small ”” lol lol 🙂
Minister, please do not dismiss we who own / dwell on site / relate to and with our neighbours…in this vital reform process. Tenants can have greater insight than many of the OC and ‘feel powerless and very frustrated’ due to current legislation. Please change it.
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Authority to gain entry to buildings :- KEYS & FIRE COMMON LISTS
Depending on the architectural plan many strata lots have a variey of secure entry / egress points. Many have just one.
Residentail Living as an owner or tenant has responsibilities at Common Law and basic ethics. This structure is built in a >> U << configuration; having three small towers each having 4 lots. All have specific secutiry doors, with one tower having two entry/egree points.
KEYS:– These can be reproduced and Security Doors have common type keys here with normal entry-to Lot- intercoms. However if you live in one tower you do not have security keys to the other two. Hence three seperate keys are required to gain overall access. This presents problems of safety
In such cases access is vital as the fallen person may be critical. You have then to do what? ”Walk away / dial 000 / or break the glass to reach in and open the door ??? ”
Same applies in the case of FIRE. You are locked out..the Strata Fire Hose you have but can’t gain entry to assist and the trapped resident can’t get to the security door and the intercom has been damaged by heat. OMG..POINT IS:- ‘If you or others had access this may save life ‘.
How do you feel on this point?
Are we as residents under the current legislation covered At Law or not? No one wants to live knowing that IF a key stopped me saving a life…..””’this system killed them””’. Do we / you have Common Insurance in place or not ???
Some non-residential E C persons have no keys. Some ‘copy them’ and hand them to others; even knowing S M refuses to issue all three Security Door keys on request from residing E C owners.
Unqualified E C has a key to Power Switch Room. They are not electrical persons but attend to some electrical site matters … ”and” read power comsumption of other Lots.
This point must have new legislation Minister. Basic human care of another can not be denied under Human Rights Charter I suggest.>>>>>> ‘ snooping or stalking’ of another is an offence I believe<<<<<<.
If others reading this have experience like this, please do comment. Density of living is advanced, however many current Drafted By-laws lack clarity and contain ambiguity.
FIRE ESCAPE PLAN & SECURITY KEYS:- Site safety and a LIST of Occupants i.e numbers only to protect names and ID and Lots needs to be on-site in the case of ‘check-lists’ so a common MUSTER AREA or AREAS are known. Language can be a barrier however numbers are a vital component to egress lists.
Ok, we in most places of work have this under O H S and Fire Laws and Duty of Care in legislation; be it Industrial of others forms.
Why have Fire Extinguish devices …and can’t gain access to them >>>>NO KEYS AVAILABLE….. ‘how mindless and inept of real though is that?’
STRATA oh dear!! Have or has anyone ever seen one document issued from F T or your SM on this life issue? If not why not?
letmein
February 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Financial Security & ID at Risk
It is know how easy your ID can be stollen + all your financial details be put where you have no control. Posted on-line and that is it.
It is the same now with Strata Managers i.e. the E C can be informed of any Lot owner if in behind in Levy payments.
I became aware being on an EC and informed by another on the same EC; but this party do not live on-site. Hence if the persons who it is aleged are behind; and close friends of yours as neighbours etc..a dicotomy and ethics conumdrum arise.
Current legislation must be changed to protect your privacy; you financial status and financial ID for all others of an OC. If this is not upheld via change, you can suffer massive losses and if such information is ever ‘posted on-line’ that is the end for you I suggest.
E.g:-
Privacy must be of a first consideration between SM and each owner; not for public disclosure. I don’t need to know or want to know what or how my friendly neighbours effect payment.
Doyou wnt everyone knowing the ‘ins-nd -outs’ of your life?
louise16
February 21, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Strata problems
I have read many blogs written about strata living and have found that they confirm my experience and often reflect the despair and distress associated with living in a strata scheme. Most of the problems seem to centre around the issue of "power" and the lengths that some owners will go to, to control a scheme and other owners for their own benefit and/or to boost their own selfish ego. Central to this is the misuse and abuse of the proxy system. Strata living unfortunately places a group of often incompatible people together in the one building with many pursing their own agenda, life style and activities without any due regard for others. The assumption seems to be that people will work together for the good of all but unfortunately this does not occur particularly when one, or a small group of individuals want to gain control of the strata scheme for themself. These individuals use a variety of tactics to ensure that they maintain power – the main one being the use of proxies.
The current system seems to support and favour owners who contrive to gain a majority vote through the use of proxies. I have corresponded with various past Ministers describing my experiences and expressing my concern with the Strata Act and with the functioning of the CTTT – all to no avail.
The following incident highlights one of my many experiences – I own a unit in a small block of 12 and this incident highlights how the continuous misuse and abuse of proxies by one owner has been used to effectively sideline myself along with four other owners from having any say in the management of the strata scheme. This action is supported and condoned by the CTTT.
We do have a managing agent but they gained the business of the owners corporation when this particular owner secured enough proxies to dismiss our previous agent – he didn’t like an agent who followed the Strata Act. He provided his proxies with misinformation about the agent and strata scheme, any attempt by myself to talk with these owners was dismissed. I was told that ….. kept them well informed. The agent has since displayed a bias towards this owner.
I attended our AGM to find that one owner had secured five proxies for himself – all from owners who either rarely or have never attended a meeting of the owners corporation. He then proceeded to use these proxies, along wth his own vote and that of one other owner to gain controll over all decsion making.
Some of the outcomes of this meeting were:
This is just one example of the misery this individual has brought to our strata scheme. The current system allows such owners to continue as there seems to be no means or effort to restrain such individuals. I believe the Strata Act needs to be reformed to protect owners, particularly those in small blocks, where it seems to be easy for proxies to be utilised by the "power hungry" to benefit themselves (or their friends) at the expense of other owners wishes. The number of proxies that one individual can obtain for themself should be restricted. – owners should also be restricted in how (and perhaps how often) they may give their proxy without ever attending a meeting or even visiting the building. All proxies should clearly indicate how they wish to vote on all issues – perhaps a voting form should be required as part of the proxy system – no individual should be able to just give a "blanket" vote with no real indication of their intentions. Such proxy forms are open to abuse and misuse.
morrison
February 22, 2012 at 4:04 am
Strata Problems
I must congratulate Louise 16 in the succinct way she put forward the deficiencies of management of a strata. Her experience almost mirrors that of the strata I am involved with. I have for 6 years attempted to get an appointment of a compulsory strata manager which would have assured correct management. the EC and strata manager refused to follow tribunal orders and were fined, they were later found to be dysfunctional and not following the law . The CTTT dismissed the case ad suggested I take up the matter with the Specialist Support Unit (which managers competencies and licensing of strata managers). The specialist support unit put the fault on the EC and suggested I take up the matter with the CTTT. To rectify problems so far, it has cost the owners corporation over $20,000 and could be up to $40,000 by the time the books have been re-written and audited.
So much for a problems solving body. Louise your problem could be solved with the appointment of a competant compulsory strata manager. The only words I can convey to you is good luck and hopefully miracles may happen.
Bob Morrison
jeffm2148
February 22, 2012 at 3:03 am
Strata Laws Online
The strata laws need ammending,any one living in this situation is at the mercy of the operator. 1 the operator should not be able to buy into the schemme where they are acting as operators, Reasons: they become owners and influence the management board and there is no seperation & consequently no privacy when confidential matters are discussed, especially if the site manager also acting as & for the mangement committee secretary.
2. Any operator should not be able to ask for medical details a condition when a tennant buys into the operaters homes, there is an implied threat the these tennants can have the lease terminated at the wim of the operator, all elderly persons have health issues.
3.The site exit fees should be ammended & backdated & capped at say three years, if these changes are not ammended, that all owners will have equity not debts at year twenty. The lack of equity for the owners and resident is particuly noticed when an elderly person wants to leave to go into a nursing home. These days in public and private nursing homes appear to want equity brought with the person going into the nursing home, it means many will live their life in a misarable situation and will have to use many state services. This would help protect them from debilitating situation and maybe lessen the chances of suicides.
4.Improve & Manage of strata schemmes. 1 The operator where I live is using a outdated set of American guides (THIS GUIDE IS AVAILABLE FROM THE CANBERRA LIBRARY WITH A MEMBERSHIP FEE OF $200) on how to run meetings and appears reluctant to go to FAIR TRADING AS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS REQUIRED. This minimum standard should be legislated in law.
5. A simpler set of guide lines for potential purchaser of strata properties, this could lessen the issues that they may have once they have bought in, many issues arise with time may be as late as twelve months later, and I am sure many would have not purshase a strate propery.
johnanddot
February 22, 2012 at 5:13 am
Management rights
1/ We have in our building a person who holds management rights to manage those units whose owners wish to tourist let their units and of cause maximize their investment (nothing to do with the caretaking duties of the building). Most of these unit owners do not live in Port Macquarie, so therefore when it comes to voting time, whether it be The Annual General Meeting incorporating the voting for the Executive Committee or any other voting issue, the tourist letting agent is given the proxies by all his customers and he is allowed to vote which ever way he wishes. In the Sandcastle’s case at the moment it is 50% of the vote and the agent decides the make-up and numbers of the Executive Committee which is in the Sandcastle’s case for 2012, two permanent resident owners, seven none resident owners out of a total of nine. The Sandcastle Executive Committee has not met since 5 November 2011 straight after the Annual General Meeting and as of this date, we have not received an agenda for any Executive Committee meeting. We believe that it is totally wrong that one person (an owner but not a permanent resident) who stands to gain a monetary sum can hold so many proxies, and in the Sandcastle’s case, we believe, constitute a conflict of interest.
2/ Also, we believe, that for the building sake the make-up of the Executive Committee members should be drawn from owners who are permanent residents who live on site and understand what happens in the day to day running of the building.
Leonie Dent
February 22, 2012 at 5:29 am
STRATA LAWS
Concerns from Strata Title Residents in West Albury NSW
a) In view of the Govt. making it necessary for payment of aged care (H/N-H) any future contracts under Strata Title be subject to re-purchase by owner or manager after 6 (six) months vacation of unit to more readily ascertain the departure fees & levies payable and any residue available for H/N-H care.
b)Retain the status quo where Retirement Village Law & Strata Law run side by side – neither having precedent over the other.or make Strata Title Law the same as Retirement Village Law where the 2 (two) converge to avoid disputes over timing of budget & annual meetings.
Retirement Village Law has less onerous constraints on timing of these.
Patrick Joyce
February 22, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Parking
My submission is mainly in regard to the allocation of Common Property for exclusive parking use through a change in By-laws.
My daughter owns a unit in a block of twelve which was built in the late sixties. At the time the development included four garages, which I assume was in line with the council requirements for car parking provision at the time. About the mid-seventies a by-law was passed whereby another six car spaces were allocated on common property to six units. As the space was not available two of the units missed out on an allocated car space in the drawing up of the by-law.
In the intervening years car ownership has multiplied, and with adjacent streets having restricted or no parking this state of affairs means that my daughter and one other of the owners in the block have their equal rights to the use of common property diminished in a very inequitable way.
If one wanted to change the by-law to make it more equitable for all the eight people who do not have a car space on title there is little chance that the six already benefiting from the arrangement would want to do so. There should be some remedy where the self-interest of the majority should not be allowed to defeat the common property rights of a minority. I hope you can address such a situation in your review of the legislation.
My second submission is in regard to the allocation of Strata Managers by developers/builders.
In the initial period when new owners are settling in there is a suspicion that a conflict of interest exists on the part of the Strata Manager between his loyalty to the builder who appointed him and his duty to the owners who pay his fees. From personal experience I can say that our Strata Manager erred on the side of the builder by procrastinating in dealing with initial defects for which the Owners Corporation had to then bear the cost. Advice in relation to landscaping defects was that this could be dealt with at any time before a seven year period. This was shown to be incorrect. General advice in relation to the issue of defects was that we should wait until a sufficient time had elapsed for a number of defects to become apparent and deal with these at one time. This was also flawed as the builder could then claim that we had not informed him of problems promptly.
When units in new blocks of have been finally sold off by the builder there should be a mandatory process whereby the management contract is reviewed annually by the new owners and the terms and conditions and ancillary costs of the management contract clearly laid out. Strata Managers should not be in a position to continue their management contract from year to year by stealth without the issue being discussed at the AGM.
I look forward to the inclusion of safeguards for the Owners Corporation where a conflict of interest on the part of their Strata Manager might exist.
George Gordon
February 23, 2012 at 12:19 am
Suggested amendments
I am writing as the chairman of Owners Corporation SP53211 (O.C.) which comprises a building known as The Grande Esplanade, Manly. The O.C. has 144 lots of which 134 are residential.
We have encountered several problems in the management of the O.C. because of restrictions in the Strata Schemes Management Act (the Act). I set out particular problems with the Act and suggested amendments below.
1.We hold bi-monthly meetings of the Executive Committee (E.C.). Because we have more than 100 lots the Act (Schedule 3 Part 2) requires that we must send a copy of the Notice of Meeting to each owner (all 144 of them) and after the meeting we must give each owner a copy of the minutes.
This requirement is quite onerous and expensive.
The Committee would often wish to meet on additional occasions to discuss and decide on fairly routine matters of maintenance and management, but we are reluctant to do so because of the above requirements.
I see no reason in principle why we should have to comply with these requirements when a strata scheme with less than 100 lots can just put notices and minutes on the O.C. Notice Board.
Suggested amendment:
The requirement for large schemes to send Notices of E.C. meetings and minutes of those meetings to every owner be waived if:
A.The notices and minutes are displayed on the O.C. Notice Board, or
B. The owners at a general meeting agree that the requirement be waived, or
C.That the notices and minutes are displayed on the O.C. web site.
2.The provisions of section 65A of the Act require us to hold a general meeting and to pass a special resolution if we wish to add to or alter the common property or to erect a new structure.
We wished to change the front doors to the building from heavy hinged doors to automatic sliding doors to make it easier for many of our older residents. We were reluctant to call an extraordinary general meeting with all the extra cost that involves to pass the necessary special resolution, so it had to wait some months until our AGM when it was unanimously passed.
Indeed, on a literal interpretation of section 65A, we would need to hold a general meeting and pass a special resolution to purchase and install a new chair in the foyer, (an addition to common property) or to alter a light fitting, (an alteration to common property).
Suggested amendment:
Delete the requirement that a special resolution needs be passed to add to or alter the common property or to erect a new structure on the common property:
A. provided that the addition , alteration or structure is in keeping with the rest of the building, or
B. that the expenditure for any such addition, alteration or structure does not exceed an amount equal to the sum of $100 per lot within the strata scheme.
3.Section 80A limits the spending by the E.C.
Our strata scheme has a 10 year sinking fund plan and we just levy a total sum for the sinking fund each year without itemising how much is for any particular item. We cannot know what expenses might come up during the year.
Suggested amendment:
I suggest that the E.C. should have a wider discretion as to how much can be spent, and how it is to be spent. Amend Section 80A (1) accordingly.
4. General observation.
The E.C. is elected at the AGM each year. Its purpose is to mange the strata scheme and the building. It should be able to meet and make decisions for the good management of the building without having to constantly report to every owner for everything it does, and without always having to call general meetings to pass what it decides. At present, the Act makes life too difficult for us.
I liken the E.C. to the directors of a company. The directors are elected to run the company, and they are accountable to the shareholders.
If the owners don’t like what the E.C.does, they can always lodge a complaint with the Registrar. They can also vote the E.C. members out at the next AGM.
Frankle
February 23, 2012 at 1:18 am
encourage – don’t discourage participation with fines and jail
Yesterday’s smh about individuals on executive committees could be fined $600,000 and/or get 5 years jail is a great encouragement for individuals thinking about getting involved in their owners corporation – NOT !!!
I’ve been on my EC off and on for about 15 years – mainly because either no-one else is interested, or I can see a need to fend off self-interested power brokers trying to steal our money for their personal profit.
to look at the role of unpaid volunteer (EC member) then say OK – if you make any mistake, you’ll be liable for a $600,000 fine or 5 years in jail – to my mind is simply unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable.
if such law comes in, then I can predict my and many more owners corporations will see a sudden lack of willing volunteers to join their ECs.
Why would they? What’s the upside? It’s already a thankless task – I give hundreds of hours of my time – freely donated to help others in my community, for what – so they can turn around and threaten to sue me every time there’s something they don’t like ?!
This morning I have already received my first email along this lines – please I would like a extra light in my stairwell to improve my perception of the safety, and by the way, yesterday’s smh says you could be fined or sent to jail if you don’t.
You see – just a hint of the news and I’m already being threatened with it!
If you want to bring in such law to catch the very worst operators, then please require a sufficiently high standard of evidence that actual good-intending hard-working volunteers can sleep at night – thanks if you can.
W.A.Trittler
February 23, 2012 at 11:02 pm
Strata Living
The document of legislation relating to the issue of Strata Living is indeed a very formidable volume. For the simple reason that I am not a lawyer, I am unable to answer every question listed in the mission statement contained in your brochure in a consecutive and precise manner.
I am however an owner of an apartment in a building that contains well over 100 units. I have been living in the building for some 17 years and speaking from observations and experience gained, I have come to the conclusion that levy increases are of great concern. It is true that the legislation is very clear in respect to this matter, which is to say that levies are determined by the owners at the AGM. It is also true that cost of new levies and to be voted on, is made known to all owners by way of the Agenda issued prior to the AGM. Alas, the fact of the matter is that not much more then between 40 and 60:% of owners turn up at this important meeting. The rest may or may not forward a proxy form allowing the Chairman to vote as he thinks fit. Naturally, the people who are at the meeting are in the first instance those which have the greatest voting powers together with a number of owners who do have an interest in their surroundings. The result of this is that levies increases up to the tune of 90% are passed.
The fact is that a survey made by me of some 12 units of similar dimension (1 bedroom & bath) the costs of levies are between 800 and 1000 dollars per quarter.
A number of the units investigated also offer car parking facilities. By way of comparison, the cost for a similar unit, without car parking, is 1500.00 per quarter.
The result of this state of affaires is that it is impossible to sell my unit for the simple reason that the levies are to high.
May I suggest that a law is introduced which on issue of the Agenda papers for a forthcoming AGM every owner will receive a separate paper which states the anticipated levy payable and provides at the same time the opportunity to tick the box of either Accept or Reject? Those papers MUST be forwarded to the E.C. by the individual owners. In the event that the rejections are in the majority, those present at the meeting will have the right to determine a new levy which is at least 10% below the anticipated levy
Obtaining a copy of the Strata Roll. One would be forgiven to think that a Strata roll is nothing other then a few papers with all the names and addresses of owners.
I have such a copy in my possession; alas it is a few years old and out of date. I had no problems whatsoever to obtain that paper from the last Strata Managers presiding over the affaires of this building. Well, not so, this time. Instead of paying a few dollars to obtain a copy there is a regular litany of reasons together with an indication of very substantial expenses as to why this paper can only be obtained by what very much looks like the “Third Degree” treatment for those who dare to ask.
In view of the legal somersaults that are very apparent in every aspect of Strata living, I would be most grateful if I could receive information as to reasonable costs and procedures to obtain a copy of the Strata Roll relating to this building.
Finally,. The Strata Management Legislation Amendment Act 2008 spells out in clear and precise terms what a Building Manager can and can not do. This most defiantly does not apply to this place. Here the Building Manager can cut locks, remove personal property, cause enormous cost in time and money and in the eyes of the court he has done nothing other then to enforce a bylaw. An objection lodged based on the above legislation was rejected. My question here is: in the light of this verdict which clearly fly’s into the face of an Act passed by Parliament, does the whole of the Strata Legislation mean anything at all or is it just a very rewarding playground in which solicitors earn their not insubstantial income.
pkleung
February 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Power of the Owners Corp to approve a DA
At present most change of usage or minor fit out within a Retail/Commercial premises will need a DA consent from the Council before it can proceed. The Council however will not consider any DA application from a strata premises without a consent from Owners Corp to that application first. Thus this puts the Management Committee of the Owners Corp in a unique powerful position. They can reject an application out of unfound prejudice or simply commercial self interest. Most of them are not professional town planners but yet they are given power to make such decision (including purposely delaying it) without any responsibility or liability. There is very little an applicant (strata owner/tenant) can do to overcome this without incurring considerable expense. In event of a tenant, he/she will simply walk away. In event of an owner they will be intimidated, "learn their lesson", & will vote with those that control the Owners Corp from then on. So more power to those already in control.
To overcome this, I suggest that the power to approve a DA be removed form the Owners Corp. It should be dealt only by the Council with their professional impartial town planners. However the Owners Corp can mount an objection on behalf of the SP.
I also understand that the existing Strata Schemes Management Act is mainly formulated towards residential units. A Retail/Commercial unit often have different needs. I believe there should be a sub-section to deal with Retail/Commercia strata premises which is now becoming much more common.
Joanne Cheng
February 24, 2012 at 12:17 am
We are the registered
We are the registered proprietors and have lived in our town house more than 20 years. Our Strata plan consists of 6 townhouses. There are four in one block ( Lot 1 –Lot 4) and lots 5 and 6 are individual free standing located at the rear part of the land. Excepted Lots 4 and 5, all are occupied by the owners. The buildings were constructed over 25 years ago.
Duty of care was not exercised by the owners of Lot 5. She bought for leased out for a catering business using heavy machines in the residential premise. Some of her tenants were undisciplined and had been reported to the Police Station .We believed that the cracking walls is the result of her previous tenants who operated the heavy industrial machines.
In the letter of the previous Strata Manager to the Registrar of CTTT clearly stated that “ the building defects being experienced by Lot 5 are due to the numerous business previously & currently operating out of the Lot, and that these faults are not the Owners Corporations responsibility but are due to the negligence of Lot 5.”
A dismissed order for the application was made by the CTTT on 2006:
“ These points are important, as the submission from the Strata Manager says that the problems being experienced are attributable to business previously carried out on the Lot. This is confirmed in remarks made the owner of Lot 1 in a meeting( not a mediation) held on 18 July 2006.
“… The cause attributed is a commercial activity carried out in Lot 5 by a predecessor in title to Mr W. and Ms L.
On this evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr W. Has shown that the order sought should be made, and I therefore dismiss the application.”
On 2 April 2007,Mr W obtained an order from an Adjudicator required the Owners Corporation to rectify certain crack in the Lot 5 and on the driveway. No specific method of rectification was required and it was not ordered that any underpinning take place.
At the same time a dispute arose between the Owners of Lot 5. The dispute resulted the Supreme Court ordering (on or about April 2008) that the ownership of the Lot 5 vest in Mr R. And Mr A.R as Trustees and in effect, ordered that the trustees facilitate repairs to the Lot and sell same.
Subsequently the Trustees (in his capacity as owner of Lot 5) applied to an Adjudicator for the appointment of W. J as a Strata Manager pursuant to section 162 SSMA and the appointment was made on 6 January 2009.
The terms of the order appointing Mr J all the powers of the executive committee of the Owners Corporation and each of executive committee office holders.
On 17 February 2009, Letter from the Trustees for Sales to Mr J stated that:
“ We refer to the litigation in this matter commenced by Mr W. Being proceedings brought by one Lot owner (Lot 5 ) against the Owners Corporation within the meaning of section 229(1) of the Strata Schemes management Act 1996 (NSW). We act for Mr R and Mr A.R, the registered proprietors of Lot 5 in the Strata plan.
Whatever the outcome of these proceedings, we request that you instruct Mr M.G. Lawyers that they seek an order pursuant to section 229(2) that any money (including costs) payable by the Owners Corporation under an order made in these proceedings must be paid from contributions levies only in relation to Lot 1 to Lot 4 inclusive and 6 in accordance with their unit entitlements ( and not by any contribution levies against the Owners of Lot 5).
We enclose an update of the Strata Roll Information Form and would you be obliged if you would ensure that all future notices are forwarded to this office.
Would you please confirm that you will so instruct Mr M.G. Lawyers.
After the appointment of the Compulsory Strata Manager and on 10 March 2009 we were notified that Mr W.had commenced legal proceedings seeking damages from the Owners Corporation based on claim that they have lost rental by reason of the state of Lot 5 and they have incurred costs in having the Owners Corporation effect repair to Lot 5.
16 June 2009, M.& d’Apice Lawyers (trustees for sales) letter to the Compulsory Strata Manager stated that:
“ We confirm that you are taking the following steps with a view to the following outcomes:
1. You have commissioned a survey report which will plot the location of the Council’s stormwater and drain and the Board’s sewer lines in the vicinity of unit 5.
2. You have commissioned a geotechnical report to firm up the information available to you concerning the underlying soil conditions.
3. Upon receipt of the survey and the geotechnical report, S. Esk. Will refine the specification for the rectification work and review the quotation provided by T. Bowles.
Upon you having, to your satisfaction, a clear understanding of the cost of the rectification works, you will call a general meeting of Strata Plan for the purpose of raising a Special Levy for the purpose of funding the rectification works. At this stage, you expect that the Special Levy will be in the vicinity of $60,000.00 per lot.”
Residential Strata Insurance Plan from CHU company recorded that the period of Insurance for the Strata Plan from 9/5/2009 to 9/5/2010
Policy 1 Insured property decreased from current $1,925,000.00 to $1,614,000.00
Loss of Rent/Temp Accomm (15.0%) decreased from 288,750.00 to $242,100.00
Policy 8 Catastrophe Insurance( Insured Property decreased from $577,500.00 to $484,200.00
We are the Owners Occupiers are suffering of the excessive and unreasonable Special Levies due to the bullying and misconduct of the Compulsory Strata Manager dealing with conflict of interests and misleading CTTT.
Within two years we have been forced to pay $60,000.00 each Lot raised by the Compulsory Strata Manager for the repairs of Lot 5 and loss of rent claimed by Mr W.
An initial quotation from the builder T.Bowles was approximately $38,000.00. From the same builder the quotation was increased up to $325,000.00 for the repair obtained by the Compulsory Strata Manager Mr J.
The actual repair and renovation the whole property of Lot 5 costs about $68,000.00
The affidavit of the engineer appointed by Lot 5 stated in Paragraph 15 -17:
“15. As can be seen from my initial report dated 11 April 2003, it was clear to me on inspection of the property that there was no danger of the building suffering any immediate collapse and that it was generally sound in its construction. This fact is clear because the movement and cracking which I initially examined in 2003 has not progressed at the date of this report, namely 2009. That is, there has been no movement over six years.
16. The last question I have been asked is as to the degree of habitability and rent ability of the property with this disability. That is, should the average tenant have been asked to pay a normal rental for a property in this condition? At the time of my first inspection, the defects in the building, namely the cracks and the movements observed, did not affect the habitability of the unit in that they did not compromise the weather proofing or result in any instability of the internal finishes(i.e. nothing was going to fall off).
17. I have seen a number of properties in far worse condition where the tenants have been paying markets rentals. I therefore see no reason why a tenant should not have been in the premises and paying market rental over the period between the time of my first report in 2003 and the date of this affidavit.”
In the affidavit of the owner of Lot 5, Mr W . stated that:
“ 25… I gave permission to Mr C.C to occupy the property at that time. Mr Chang did not pay any rent to me. He left the town house in June 2008, after the Trustees were appointed.
26. My mother and I have never lived in the town house, nor as my sister. It was purchased for the purpose of investment, and to be let out.
27. The townhouse had a various cracks to the external walls and other areas outside it such as adjoining paved areas. By the time Mr Tikuye had vacated in January 2003 the cracks were sufficiently large to cause the property to be unfit to be let.
28. I seek the damages against the Defendant for rent which I have lost in the period from February 2003 until present, together with future losses which are continuing. I also seek damages from legal costs which I incurred in bringing proceedings in the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal, for the purpose of compelling the Defendant to carry out repairs to the town house.”
Mr W claimed loss of rent from the Owners Occupiers $30,000.00 + Legal fees $ 58,000.00 were compromised by the Owners Corporation’s Lawyer without the consent of the Lots Owners.
Being appointed for a period of almost 12 months Mr J the Compulsory Strata Manager had not made any substantial progress in the [proposed works.
He had incurred to the Owners Occupiers a large amount of costs and that such costs would in all probability be ongoing. He had relied very heavily on the lawyer for advice thus incurring more than $100,00.00 in legal fees and had spent more money on consultants than he will spend actually fixing the problem.
The Compulsory Strata Manager each year had spent a few thousand dollars from the Owners Corporation’s fund for the application to extend their period from CTTT with the misleading information.
No investigate from Fair Trading! No hearing from CTTT! The decision made from CTTT only based on the written submission. Even with all the documents submitted but we were always unsuccessful to remove the Compulsory Strata Manager and the Owners Corporation’s Lawyer appointed by the Trustees for Sales of Lot 5 and the Compulsory Strata Manager.
On March 2010,the Trustees for Sales correspondence to our Lawyer stated that:
“ Would you please obtain your client’s instructions to discontinue the application to remove the Managing Agent which is listed for hearing tomorrow and to pay their levies and let me have your advice on their instructions to you. That application is strenuously opposed and an order for the costs incurred by us will be sought against your client if the application continue beyond tomorrow.”
On March 2010, the Compulsory Strata Manager resolved to borrow $110,000.00 from the finance company without the consent of Lots Owners Occupiers. We have been forced to pay Special Levies $5,500 per quarter for one year!
With a small Strata Scheme without lift , pool… the Compulsory Strata Manager is raising $ 1,600.00 Strata Levy per quarter.
We look forward to see the reform of the Strata Laws in the flexible and fair way to resolve the dispute avoiding the stress and financial hardship.
nonsmokersmovement
February 24, 2012 at 12:43 am
Secondhand tobacco smoke is toxic in strata living.
Non-Smokers’ Movement of Australia Inc. (NSMA) has been fighting since 1977 for everybody’s right to breathe clean air, free from the poisons in tobacco smoke. If you can smell tobacco smoke, then the poisons are going into your lungs and your family’s lungs and doing you harm (Advice from Thoracic Surgeon, Sydney). With the proliferation of multi unit housing over the past 50 years in Australia, and the success of smokefree legislation in most other aspects of our lives,(public transport, private vehicles carrying children, indoors in all public buildings, at outdoor places such as beaches, playgrounds, crowded events, and some restaurants) we have come to an unfortunate situation where families are often subjected to assault from tobacco smoke in one important area – right where they should be able to lead healthy lives – in their own homes. Clean water, clean air – everybody’s basic right. We expect clean water out of our taps at home. So should we be able to expect to breathe clean air, free from poisons. Secondhand tobacco smoke triggers life-threatening heart and lung conditions, including asthma, as well as irritations to eyes and throat, nausea and headaches. Smoke drift occurs when tobacco smoke from neighbours drifts away from one property and into others, onto balconies, through open windows and doorways Smoke seepage occurs when tobacco smoke "travels from its point of generation in a building to all other areas of the building. It has been shown to move through light fixtures, through crawl spaces, and into and out of doorways. Once exposed, building occupants are at risk for the irritant, allergic and acute and chronic cardiopulmonary and carcinogenic adverse health effects which are known to be associated with environmental tobacco smoke (secondhand smoke) exposure" California Chief of Occupational Health and Safety 1993. Secondhand smoke is very difficult to remove, as it lingers and becomes entrapped in rooms and small spaces. Smokers are often unaware, and some don’t care, that their smoke affects others around them. When told, they often become aggressive when asked to prevent their smoke from seeping and drifting into other properties. They say that, because they are using a legally available product, they should be able to use it anywhere, especially in their own homes. Our peak civil rights body, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, says that although tobacco is a legally available product, smoking should not be allowed in places where it may harm others. NSW Strata Law must be changed, to recognise that secondhand smoke is not simply an annoyance or a nuisance. Tobacco smoke is a health hazard and, must be prevented from affecting others, just as in the workplace and in public spaces, indoors and outdoors. We call on the NSW Government to make the following regulations: 1. All new-build multi-unit housing to be declared smokefree, with allowance for residents to apply to be allowed to smoke within their own property only if they can prove that their smoke will not affect others, either through smoke-drift or smoke-seepage. Specific smoke-tests would be required for proof. This would be similar to applying to have a specific pet, and ensuring that the pet does not affect other people in the property. 2. Declare that all current multi-unit properties must introduce smoke-free by-laws within 12 months of the regulation, application fees being waived and support funding sought from Federal Tobacco Taxes. Similar to Item 1, smokers could then make individual applications to be allowed to smoke, but with the same proviso, i.e. not to affect others on the property. The advantage of having all established properties lodging within a limited time-frame is so that all property-owners would know their buildings would be safe in the near future – a "level playing field". Another advantage – some smokers would, with further limitations on where to smoke, consider and try quitting, for their own and their family’s sake. Studies have shown that the majority of smokers wants to quit. There are many quitting therapies now available, harmless to smokers and, more importantly, harmless to the smoker’s family, friends and innocent passers-by. Margaret Hogge Non-Smokers’ Movement of Australia Inc. .
dubbostrata
February 24, 2012 at 12:48 am
Tenants at AGM’s???
Many tenants are not able to respect the rights and responsiblities of the owners corporations. Who even suggested the idea that tenants attend agm’s? More hazards and repair costs are caused by tenants not being responsible. They never contibute to the improvements and upkeep of the common areas financially or voluntary. Majority of units we manage are now tenanted which puts more demands and cost onto our business maintaining and enforcing by-laws. We have no problems with tenant requests and improvement of their residence however it has to be a give and take situation. Tenants now having to be issued with copies of by-laws is a great idea and we have been working with property managers to assist in providing these to tenants and for them to acknowledge and accept the by-laws at the time of signing their lease agreements. However, there is many tenants out there that would not of been provided or notified of such by -laws by self managed owners and/or property managers not fully understanding the strata industry. There needs to be more training and awareness to property managers when taking on their roles. We have had feed back from both tenants and owners regarding rentals in strata complexes. Tenants complaints are that common property repairs are not always passed onto the strata managers from property managers. Delays with maintenance issues being passed on usually ends up with small maintenance issues becoming larger ones. Owner occupiers ask that units not be leased that they are only for owner occupiers. Owners leasing their units (and owner occupiers) would like to see property management carry out more regular inspections of units and I think that strata management should be invited to attend some of these inspections with them to identify any common property maintenance requirements that may be visible only from inside the units. Property management, owners and strata management need to work together to ensure that buildings are well maintained and managed effectively which will result in happy tenants that like to do the right thing and not have to attend agm’s.
hosa
February 24, 2012 at 3:51 am
proxy system
The proxy system needs to be reformed to stop one owner in a strata scheme from gathering proxies to dominate/manipulate the business of the Body Corporate to the detriment of other owners. May be one solution is to restrict the number of proxies that one owner can obtain and use.
The CTTT is an ineffective body which is unable to solve strata problems. I am not sure if this is because of the type of people who staff such an organisation or the procedures followed.
sebastian brischetto
February 24, 2012 at 3:58 am
NO SMOKING AT UNITS – MAKE IT THE LAW
Smokers living in units are a health hazard and are usually unaware of or disregard the danger or discomfort they inflict on other residents. Typical smokers do not smoke within their unit. They smoke on the common area or on their balcony, after closing their doors or windows to prevent smoke entering their unit. The match stick is flicked on to the common area and smoke belches into the atmosphere or common area or permeates across or above into adjoining balconies and into units through open windows and doors. The cigarette butt is then usually thrown on to the common property.
The Consumer Trade & Tenancy Tribunal – Strata and Community Schemes Division at hearings SC06/44767 and 06/44783 ordered the respondents – the tenant and the unit owner landlord – pursuant t Section117 (1) (a) of the Strata SWcheme Management Act to cease using or permitting a lot to be used in such a manner to cause a nuisance or hazard to any other lot owners. The case involved smoke and odours entering other units. Under existing laws an Owners Corporation or owner may seek orders under general provisions of nuisance and hazard, requiring several standards of proof. NO SMOKING at or on strata properties and common area should require only proof that smoking occured. NO SMOKING health laws should also apply.
Cigarette smoke and its effects is recognised as a serious health hazard – banned from hospital precints, work places, entertainment venues and vehicles under certain circumstances. Tobacco products cannot be displayed or advertised for sale. Proposed new laws require generic packaging plus explicit health warnings.
Reports today indicate that health laws regarding passive smoking are to be extended and a reported 4 metres exclusion zone from apartment entries is to apply. This may be suitable at high rise buildings. Many unit blocks have ground floor and first loor units above garages. A smoker may be 4 metres from an entry , but adjacent to or under a balcony with open door or windows.
NO SMOKING AT STRATA PROPERTIES – IS THE SOLUTION – MAKE IT THE LAW
Richard Holloway
February 24, 2012 at 4:43 am
Stand up and be counted
The last review of the Strata Laws commenced in 1994 (I was a participant) it is now 2012, 18 years on. The current Strata Schemes Management Act is 1996, Community Land Management Act 1989, Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 with all legislation having numerous amendments.
Both industry participants, owners and occupiers must get involved and continue to be involved.
Dorothy Jeffery
February 24, 2012 at 4:57 am
Consultation
I have been the Secretary/Treasurer of a Owners Corporation for a number of years and I would like to make you aware of a factor that arose some years ago in the complex which I am involved with which I feel needs to be addressed to the Strata rules governing such complexes.
It was in a development of some nineteen units, all on ground level and most of which were built in pairs in an open complex. A unit had a problem with the flooring of one of the units which had sunk and it needed to be repaired. At one stage it was taken to the Dept. Fair Trading and they said that we would have to fix it, even if it meant that the unit had to be demolished, along with the adjoining unit and rebuilt. Fortunately, we did not have to go to those extremes, but it meant quite a lot of anxiety and negotiations to have the unit fixed by repairing the floor, the walls of the unit and having the interior of the unit repainted. It also meant quite an amount of money outlayed from resources of the Owners Corporation.
I believe, that because the unit was freestanding, not in any way encroaching on 17 other units in the complex it should have been up to the owner of that particular unit to have the unit repaired himself.
If he had bought a home in a street and found the problem he would have had to fix the problem himself, surely in this case it is honestly, no different.
When buying a unit you get a building certificate for that unit, and have a builder look at the unit for any faults or discrepancies and that unit. If in the case of a high rise you would also get a report on the particular unit in which it is housed, not on every separate building within the particular complex.. At the time of getting the unit fixed the usual comment from builders, engineers and the like was "what did it matter to the Owners Corporation and they were astounded when they learnt that the Owners Corporation were responsible for the repair of the unit"’.
I believe that many of the complexes that are like this are owned by people, in many or most cases by elderly people, and they are not aware of the consequences that should arise with the unit that they themselves own.
Therefore, I would like to see the current ruling changed so that if you are the owner of a unit which is freestanding or in the case of one which is in a building of two or more units and something happens to the interior of a unit that you or your adjoining owners are responsible for the repair or rectification of that or those units but not responsible if you are separate from that or those units.
boganboy
February 26, 2012 at 8:48 am
Proxy farming is no asset to communities
As a resident owner in a community title estate I have been able to observe the negative effects of excessive proxy farming at community general meetings upon the principles of open debate, the diverse expression of opinions and consequently upon the achievement of more broadly based outcomes. It has become apparent that one member of the community is able to gather sufficient proxies to establish a majority voting bloc in his /her own right. I have also observed that such enthusiastic vote gathering is often not done with the finest of motives, but may contain strong personal agendas and the desire to disenfranchise others.
A restriction upon the number of proxies which may be individually held will encourage broader community participation in discussion and provide a more democratic base for voting. It may even jolt the apathetic out of their seats long enough to attend.
Additionally, the CTTT is currently a toothless tiger with no real power to address or redress significant by law breaches after the event. This is even more evident when a hearing is so far after the event which precipitated it that circumstances have moved on and redress is not easily accomplished – particularly in building matters. The CTTT has demonstrated that it lacks the authority or will to initiate correction in such cases even if the breach is acknowledged. Change is required.
Waldemar Niemotko
February 27, 2012 at 12:13 am
Equality of parties to be assured
Q 1.1 Equality of parties to be assured, specifically, an efficient advocacy system to protect ageing unit owners living independently in their units,from strong parties and strata managers.
1.2 Individual storage enclosures to be identified on a title, if
feasible.
1.3 Beneficiaries of public housing to be made subject of a
periodical means and assets tests, taking into account "divorce" occurrences (really, not confined to eastern suburbs in Sydney).
1.4 Scrutinise for the motives interstate property investors and
those coming from overseas.
Q 2.1 Ethics standards for elected office bearers/executives.
2.1.1 Impartiality in dealing with all strata matters, in particular,
not to use the discretionary power against a personal adversary.
2.1.2 Not to enter into a civil arrangement with someone else’s
tenant without the knowledge of his/her landlord.
2.2 Multiple proxies to determine the quorum, however, their
impact to be sharply reduced for voting purposes.
2.3 Only the owner present at the meeting to be seen eligible to
become an executive.
2.4 Strata manager not to be allowed to charge a fee for answering
a phone or face-to-face inquiry from an owner.
Q 3.1 In a multiple block of units, a new owner to be seen eligible
for election as an executive only upon a year since settlement.
3.2 Executive meetings to be scheduled in advance for the whole
year.
3.3 Office bearers to notify on a notice board the time and venue
of their availability to unit owners.
3.4 Unit owner to be allowed to sit in at an executive committee
meeting.
3.5 If a unit owner is found to have damaged the common property, has to be made accountable for it.
Q 4.1 To make it mandatory for a defendant to respond to a mediation application.
4.2 CTTT to subpoena vital documents, if requested by a party to
the dispute.
4.3 An officer of the Department of Fair Trading to be allowed, at
their discretion, to sit in at a strata meeting, if a concerned unit owner gives a good reason to do so.
4.4 To publish online most significant strata litigation cases (precedents).
Michelle Provenzano
February 27, 2012 at 12:25 am
Executive Committee Members holding too many Proxies
A1. Executive Committee Members holding too many Proxies, 2-3 Members who are allowed to have 7-8 Proxies out-vote all other owners.
Members remain too many years on the Committee – they vote themselves in.
Executive Meetings should not be by emails only with members residing overseas.
Approvals should be given to Strata Managers for urgent works to be done within days, not months. eg. not 4 months.
A2. Section 116/117 does not cover sufficiently small and large every day problems that upset the life of decent living owners.
The look-of Strata buildings should have same color awnings, same everything on the outside.
Balconies not to be used for back-yard barbeques, kitchens with smoke & smell billowing into the windows of bedrooms and other parts of their home or the streets of large cities like Sydney. It is as bad and ugly as the cigarette smoking.
Our cities can become unsightly in the future. We should follow other capital cities eg. New York, London, Paris, and other smaller cities in civilised countries, how orderly, clean they are.
A3. Strata Managements should have more power over riding selfish Executive Members by following the LAW of Strata Living!…
Book keeping is also a ?questionable? mater, when it is prepared by 1 Committee Member who claims to be an accountant with a questionable background.
A4. Changes ARE NEEDED for stringent rulings for breaking Strata Laws, and for Tenants, that destroy rented properties. Rental Shortage is also due to the above problem with Tenants, who get away easy with their careless, treatment of rental properties.
I have 50 years of experience in Real Estate investments, also held a RE Licence in SA since 1966, the 1st licenced female in the State of South Australia. I have held rental apartments in Strata Buildings for 30 years in NSW & SA.I also had dealings with the NSW Fair Trading during Labor
Governments.
THE TIME HAS COME FOR OUR NEW GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SOME THOROUGH, DRASTIC CHANGES.
Peter Kofler
February 27, 2012 at 12:39 am
I am offering the following thoughts and suggestions
I am offering the following thoughts and suggestions for consideration based on many years of active and continued involvement as a member of a Strata Building Owners Corporation Executive Committee living in, owning and renting a strata unit. These ideas are presented under three main headings as follows:
1.By-Laws for Strata Residential Buildings
These are living guides for residents covering owners and other occupiers
(tenants) and as such should be written in plain English, dealing with the most frequently occurring issues, and hence should be presented in a user friendly format.
(a) Coverage
The Strata Act by-laws most recently issued were in 2010. They represent the nucleus of a building’s by-laws, supplemented whenever the need arises with by-laws formed by an Owners Corporation to meet the special needs of an individual building.
These Strata Act By-Laws are included in all tenancy leasing agreement The current 2010 Strata By-Laws (no 492, schedule 2) total 22, but it is proposed that additional by-laws are needed in this generic coverage to cope with the changing needs of building residents. These are:
i.Notice Board showing minutes of a building’s executive committee meetings and other building items of interest to residents. (was previously included in 1996 Strata Act By-Laws number 18, the wording of which is proposed to be expanded as indicated here)
ii.Making it mandatory to develop a ten year building upgrade plan, updated every five years. This is equally important for both older and newer buildings as the process ensures that buildings are effectively upgraded and repaired, the costs of which are monitored, providing a history of the state of the building for new owners, enabling properly planning for preparing, implementing and funding projects.
iii.Stating that owners / occupiers have a responsibility for common areas located in their lots. giving examples such as pipes, etc. This is becoming increasingly important with the higher proportion of tenanted strata apartments.
iv.Residents responsibilities outlined when moving in-out of a building rules especially relating to the protection of common property and minimizing disruptions to other residents. (This is a phenomenon occurring more frequently as a high proportion of lots are occupied by tenants who regularly change their location. There is therefore a greater risk of common property being damaged with the moving of furniture and other heavy personal belongings. ( Such a by-law was previously included in 1996 Strata By-laws, number 18).
(b) Format
It is suggested that Building By-Laws be presented subdivided into five distinct heading categories as follows:
LIVING GUIDES – COMMON PROPERTY – KEY RESPONSIBILITY – LOT ALTERATION – TOTAL BUILDING.
Whilst there may be some overlaps, my experience has indicated it to be minimal. This facilitates both accessing and reading By-Laws, which assists
compliance.
2.Strata residential building responsibilities
The owner and owner’s corporation financial responsibilities within a Strata Building are important matters. During the past 12 months guideline papers have been publicly released to assist in their interpretation. One such example was Memorandum AG520000 dated September 27th 2011, prepared by the Strata Industry Working Group (www.Ipma.nsw.gov.au). Responsibility matters do not arise on a daily basis when living in a Strata building, and hence are not of concern to most residents. However, when such matters arise they are usually referred to the Owners Corporation Executive Committee and the Strata Building Manager for a ruling. It is therefore recommended that such a document as the Memorandum AG520000 be included in the Strata Act as a reference source for all parties to access when matters need resolving.
3.Overview of living trends impacting on Strata Building Maintenance.
I have observed over many years the rising proportion of tenanted residents relative to owner- occupiers which reside in a Strata Building. In many of these buildings tenanted residents represent the majority of the residents.
This involves tenants frequently changing in line with their tenancy agreement expiry dates. Much movement of furniture and other heavy belongings occur. New tenants also require building guides to acquaint themselves with the building configuration and the building living guidelines. Issues of reserved parking space available for each lot with multi vehicles / lot are continuously arising. Overall, therefore there is an increased likelihood of common property damage.
In contrast owner occupiers have a much more direct interest in the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of their Strata Building, and they stay longer in
the building.
The Strata residential building act should recognize these important trends which are rising.
click
February 27, 2012 at 1:46 am
Reallocation of Unit Entitlements
The proportion of strata levy and statutory charges that a strata unit pays depends on their UNIT UNTITLEMENTS. Thus the annual outgoing cost to an unit owner depends heavily on their Unit Entitlements. However circumstances may change that makes their allocated Unit Entitlement rather unfair. Under such circumstancies, the unit owner can make an application to CTTT under SECT 183 of the Strata Schemes Management Act for a reallocation of Unit Entitlements. But the Act also requires that the applicant provides the Tribunal with a valuation certificate of ALL the strata units in the whole Strata Plan regardless whether the valuations on some units are relevant or not.
This may appear reasonable in a small Strata Plan. But in a large SP of over 100 unit, the cost to comply with such requirement is simply financially prohibitive.
My suggestion is that such requirement be removed from the Act; and the Tribunal can rely on the submission of the applicant together with the relevant professional valuations to make an order. The Tribunal shall have the discretion to request additional information if necessary.
Mr Strata
February 27, 2012 at 5:33 am
Complete rewrite needed
The current laws are a dogs breakfast with bits tacked on here and there to address the perceived issue of the day. You could knock out half the laws overnight and I bet most people wouldn’t even notice they were gone.
The drafters should go back to a plain canvas and start again from scratch. Some of the more important provisions are hidden away at the back in the Schedules. However, why is there a need to repeat many of the provisions for the first AGM in those applying to any other meeting. Same goes for the by-laws. There is a standard set in the Act and numerous models in the Regulations and it is very difficult to spot the difference between them.
Having lots of sections solely dealing with the Tribunal’s/adjudicator’s power to make very orders is a waste of space and makes the Act much longer than it needs to be. These should be put in the relevant sections covering the same subject matter.
You could also get rid of the silly ‘introductions’ at the start of each part. That’s what an index and proper section headings should be for.
Putting the definitions at the start of the Act would help as well.
citizen1
February 27, 2012 at 6:00 am
Strata managers are R-souls.
Dafelan
February 27, 2012 at 6:10 am
STRATA MEDIATION & ADJUDICATION
By reference to the "Mediation", quoted proudly in the CTTT annual report for 2010-11?
A strata scheme, comprising 10 units and 4 shops in a 1930’s art deco building, had ongoing issues with water penetration through the roof. Numerous repairs to patch the leaks had been made but they failed to fix the problem.
One of the lot owners, whose unit was most affected by the water penetration, lodged an application with the Tribunal for Adjudicator’s orders that the owners corporation carry out a complete replacement of the roof and undertake repairs to her unit including replastering and painting of damaged walls. She provided photographs showing extensive mould and water damage to her ceilings and a quote for the repair work coming to a total of $170,000.
A number of submissions were received from other lot owners who generally supported the application. The submissions confirmed that many attempts had been made to patch and repair the leaking roof and that water penetration into the applicant’s unit had been an ongoing problem. However, it was apparent there was much disagreement between the lot owners about how and when the roof repair work should be undertaken. Some submissions contended that other common property repairs were more of a priority than repairing the roof.
After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Strata Schemes Adjudicator was satisfied that there was a problem with water penetration into the applicant’s unit and that extensive repairs were required. However, the Adjudicator considered that the owners corporation should be given an opportunity to obtain a report which clearly articulated the scope of works.
The Adjudicator declined to make the orders sought by the applicant, and instead ordered the owners corporation to obtain a report from a suitably qualified person to investigate the cause of the water penetration into the applicant’s unit and provide options and solutions for the repair works.
Who’s interests are being served by such injustices, and what’s the point? Why should the OFT retain the right to force people to undertake the time and expense of "mediation" when such outcomes are being experienced?
Bill8081
February 27, 2012 at 7:04 am
STRATA LAW REFORM
ronniegall
February 27, 2012 at 8:48 am
Strata Schemes
Education of Executive Committees,Strata Managers and Owners Corporations re strata laws needsto be addressed.
Strataspheric
February 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR LEGISLATION
Adam Colman
February 28, 2012 at 12:07 am
Changing Strata Laws
My property consists of two units under Strata Title. However, the building structure is one ground floor unit which includes a reasonable size parcel of land and the above unit being compensated with a very large balcony. The common area includes a parthway plus an area near garages, which has always been used as common parking. My wife and I own the ground floor unit, while looking after our land we keep this common area maintained “cleaning and sealing tiles etc”. In our circumstance, an unwritten agreement has always been that each owner attends to their own maintenance costs, which includes any outside living areas. We have repaired our own patio area as agreed. The owner of the above unit has gone and done repairs to hers and is now seeking compensation. Insurance, guttering, painting and any roof repairs is shared by agreement. My suggestion to eliminate any doubt as to who is responsible for what is to have a document such as a “Deed of Agreement” to be part of the transaction at the time of purchase, to be agreed and signed by both parties. In that way when ownership of a unit changes there is no question about the incoming owners responsibilities. With the passage of time other issues may need to be included or eliminated as the case may be, but such changes would become subject of negotiation.
Robert Barnes
February 28, 2012 at 12:10 am
Life Cycle of Strata Title Buildings?
Kaunitzj
February 28, 2012 at 12:57 am
Improving strata living and experience – missing ingredients
Strata Law Review
The Big Picture and Missing Ingredients
Whilst particular aspects of strata management practice and legislation represent problem areas that certainly need attention, the following general but fundamental deficiencies also need attention. Whilst addressing particular problems may lead to improvements in particular respects, without addressing these general deficiencies qualitative improvement in general strata management practice is unlikely to be achieved.
Improve public awareness and education of strata living
The number of people in NSW who live in strata schemes is now of the same order as the number who live in free-standing houses. Unfortunately, relatively few fully appreciate the differences between the two and tend to view the former as a version of the latter.
Better public awareness of the nature of strata ownership is required to improve the quality of management of strata schemes, to reduce conflict and to improve conflict resolution. Such improvements are unlikely unless most owners are aware and understand the key implications of strata ownership:
Unfortunately presently the focus and interest of most strata owners is limited to point 1 above. There may be some awareness of 4 and 5 but an all too common perception of owners is that governance and management of the strata scheme is taken care of by someone else and is not their concern.
The NSW Fair Trading booklet Strata Living summarises the information strata owners should be aware of in a compact, user friendly fashion. It is the type and of style of document that, with review and a few improvements, is considered appropriate to address this issue and is therefore considered a ready-made solution.
Unfortunately, relatively very few strata owners are aware of this document. There needs to be a public awareness campaign via TV ads to make strata owners aware of the nature of strata ownership that points to this document. A copy should be given to all purchasers of strata units as a form of product disclosure statement.
One relatively minor concern about the Strata Living booklet is that it presents a paraphrased version of the by-laws from Schedule 1 of the Act without explaining that the wording is different. Whilst OC’s are free to modify by-laws or adopt the more user friendly version in Strata Living the advantage of the version in the Act is that it has been subject of case law over many years. The Strata Living booklet should be subjected to a legal review to ensure its contents are legally sound and defensible. (For example the booklet contains a paraphrased version of the standard by-laws. This is confusing and legally unacceptable)
Recommendations
Clarify the Act and provide an “Operating Guideli nes for Executive Committees” manual
The Strata Schemes Management Act reflects a style and approach which aims at being simple, brief and user friendly and at the same time cater for the great variation in the size and complexity of schemes and the sophistication of executive committees. To meet these requirements, the solution which seems to have been adopted, is to include in the legislation the bare essentials and leave everything else unsaid and undefined.
The Act does not provide, even in outline, the intended underlying operating model for strata schemes or a description of the roles and responsibilities of all the parties involved in such a way that a holistic understanding of what is intended may be gleaned. Instead the reader and practitioners need to form their own view of what is intended by piecing together the puzzle based on fragmented information that is actually contained in the Act.
For example the Act defines lists of duties of Secretaries and Treasurers but the only duty it assigns to Chairmen in passing is to chair meetings of the OC and EC when they are present. Realistically, there will be a need to represent the OC in various situations and to provide leadership. Chairmen and EC’s will adopt different interpretations of their role and in some cases this can lead to abuse of position and dysfunctional outcomes.
Key terms in the Act are not defined and this can lead to significant confusion and misinterpretation. For example Section 65A of the Act is a 2005 amendment aimed at allowing OC’s to “add to” or “alter the common property” but only if this is approved by a special resolution at a general meeting. Whilst s65A was clearly intended to provide a mechanism whereby OC’s may implement significant changes in he nature of modifications to common property (as it is currently defined), there is no definition or explanation of the term “alter” or the complementary term “repair and maintain” to refer to works which improve the condition of common property but leave it consistent with current specifications.
Consequently considerable confusion now exists where, contrary to NSW Fair Trading advice, strata lawyers advise clients who wish to carry out routine apartment renovations which involve only repair, renewal or restoration of the lot and associated internal common property, such as bathroom tiles, that such works “alter” common property. The consequence of this advice is that even the most routine renovations are subjected to the demanding approval process of S65A of the Act (approval by special resolution at a General Meeting. In the past such routine renovations were approved by executive committees (and in most schemes still are) under the standard by-law 5, as unavoidable collateral damage and repair of common property during renovations, which owners should be entitled to undertake with relative ease, provided quality controls imposed by the OC are met.
It is clear that the Act needs to be reviewed and revised to avoid such ambiguities, to clarify intentions, and to provide a holistic and complete operating outline at least in terms of the role definitions of all key entities involved;
Owners
The owners corporation
The executive committee and its members
Office holders: chairman, secretary, treasurer
Strata managing agent
Building manager or caretaker
In addition, there is clearly a need for a publication, possibly entitled Operating Guideli nes for Executive Committees that would provide essential need to know information and a tutorial framework, in the simple user-friendly style of Strata Living, to guide the activities of EC’s various shapes and sizes.
Recommendations
Clarify the role of strata managing agents
The executive committees and office holders of owners corporations consist of volunteer owners or their representatives. It cannot be assumed that the management and other skills necessary to effectively run the owners corporations will be available from its executive committee members.
Therefore the strata schemes concept is critically reli ant on the assumption that any gap in skills and capability amongst the scheme’s members and executive committee can be filled by strata managers as independent expert advisers and representatives of the scheme. Strata managing agents usually carry the delegations of all office holders and are therefore in a position to act as administrators of the scheme if necessary.
For this arrangement to work strata agents must be strictly independent and stringently represent and pursue only the best interests of OCs that they represent. Accepting commissions from suppliers is inconsistent with this view and represents a clear conflict of interest. The fact that strata agents accept currently commissions for insurance and from other suppliers is clearly a case of conflict of interest and a sign of significant role confusion amongst agents that needs to be clarified.
Currently strata agents operate under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002, an Act which circumscribes the activities of various types of business agents but which does not specifically subscribe the role of strata agents.
Inclusion of a role definition of strata managers in the Strata Act may provide a part solution to this issue. Whilst there is likely to be a case for strata mangers to continue to operate under the general provisions of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 there is also a case to further circumscribe their role in the Act in order to provide a complete operating model for strata schemes.
Recommendations
sparrowyarrow
February 28, 2012 at 1:23 am
Community title
We (my wife and I) would like to respond to the (hopeful) proposed update to the Community Title Laws. Before I initially respond to your four questions, I would like to explain that I am a farmer (and though I make mention to the fact later on, I suppose on re reading this I should say here that I am Deputy President of the Tweed’s Combined Rural Industries Association…the Tweeds largest rural representative body) We have for years looked at what would be the best way forward for our land, for us and for our local community in a quickly changing world. With this in mind we will try to include the CT Development proposal that we put to our Tweed Shire Council…that was denied. Feed back from our Council’s Future Planners was…we really like the concept, but because the minimum lot size here [by default I might add] is 40 ha, it can not be even considered, let alone allowed. Our proposed CT Development’s inclusion is given purely to put to you an idea of what we believe could be done. As we do not have a scanner to scan our farm maps, an aerial view is available via our address….491 Baker’s road, Byangum 2484 on Google Earth. If, as you state NSW is lagging behind everywhere else in the rest of the world in relation to CT Development, surely we as a State could make a giant leap forward to set the desired parameters for others to once again try to match? We put to our council, too, the possibility of doing our proposed development in conjunction with them, so that we all had a better understanding in relation to trying to set the parameters to achieve the best outcome for others who might wish to take this path….so that we were all winners. But the system appears so set in concrete that it can not be! To emphasize just how interested our Tweed Shire Council are, perhaps I could mention that along with this Community Title re assessment, and the NSW Planning Issues Review , we have had absolutely no word from TSC suggesting that we enter a submission….our responses have had to come 100% from us…as I have said in this document…it would appear that TSC is not at all interested …their continuing apathy does not inspire any confidence at all.
darkness in strata living in NSW
February 28, 2012 at 2:48 am
Darkness
Most current thing is the strata manage agent use OC money to buy committee member, CTTT officer,fair trading officer, insurance officer to get the best benifit (not legal money) for their business. this already cause big social problem and decrease appartment velue and force investment owner increase their rental fee, all this directly effect millons people`s life.
all of this happen is the law let strata agent is the boss because they hold the OC money and other party become their empleyee and working for their benifit. only the money can drive people forget who is he or she.
How to explain the committee member do not care the levy from $1000 up to $2000 because they do not to pay the levy and strata paid for them.
How to explain the repair job can be $500 up to $2000? All contractor working for strata knows the under the table rules.
How to explain strata agent can not provide the information as the owner or OC requested and even go to CTTT still no result?
How to explain even no strata agent lost licence or get panalty in the CTTT history?
Can the strata agent business bank transaction and cash management report, invoice, insurance claim be examed.
How the strata agent so happy to be the compulsory agent and CTTT as well? just have look how much levy increase under compulsory agent.
Conclusion;
Fair trading and CTTT of NSW is the main responsible for the darkness of strata living.
greystokes
February 28, 2012 at 4:20 am
Strata Law Anomolies
There appears to be a perception that one set of laws fits all in the field of Strata Law This cannot be. How can you compare an estate with an average of 16 units with one which has 300 plus ?
The large estates have a problem which is unlikely to happen in small estates. Imgine a large estate of 300 plus units,200 of which are rented out to tenants. The absentee owners of these rented units do not see the day to day happenings on the estate, and provided they receive a rental on a regular basis, they assume that all is well. They also feel under an obligation, if called upon to vote a certain way at an AGM, to adhere to that requst.
In certain circumstances this can result in block voting for an EC whch is biased in favour of matters which are detimental to the estate as a whole and allow a small number of people to run the estate to further their interests,and block any AGM motions which may oppose them. If someone objects to what is going on. they find they have to take action against the Body Corporate of which they themselves are members, and they cannot compete, on the basis of legal costs, with the financial resourcs of the Body Corporate.
There have to be laws to restrict the number proxies one person can hold, and that no one can serve on an executive committee for more than 12 moths
gordonbell1
February 28, 2012 at 4:38 am
Strata insurance is often
Strata insurance is often compared, wrongly, to household insurance and this is a dangerous thing for anyone owning or living in an apartment. It is even more dangerous for the team of volunteers charged with the responsibility of taking out the correct level of insurances for their building, the Executive Committee members.
There are some important differences from a domestic household policy and strata insurance:
– Full replacement value. Legislation demands that the level of insurance taken out is for full replacement value. In other words, the insurance in place MUST protect all owners from the full financial shortfall relating to their building i.e. should it be destroyed or have to be re-built the insurance will provide the funds to completely reinstate it as it was when new.
– Unlimited liability for lot owners. If the strata insurance does falls short, every lot owner will have to make up the shortfall because as a member of the Owners Corporation, each lot owner has as unlimited liability status under the law, with a legal obligation to plug any financial gap. In practice, this means all of their personal assets are exposed.
Unfortunately, many unit dwellers are simply unaware of their responsibilities or the legal requirements for strata insurance. Alarmingly, many are unaware that when there is a financial shortfall, their unlimited liability status exposes all their personal assets. Education can help but where knowledge is lacking unfortunately ignorance of the law is no defense.
Suggestion to help the Lot Owners
We have highlighted 4 key changes that would help reduce some of the risks faced by both owners of strata and the executive committee members. These suggestions will help with properties being insured for the correct amount and encourage a more comprehensive level of insurance for Owners Corporations. These are:
1. Valuations for insurance purposes (ACT Sect 85)
Issue: Relying on a five year old insurance valuation exposes an Owners Corporation, and lot owners, to underinsurance because their insurance policy is unlikely to cover the full cost of a full re-build when a major storm or event occurs, and extensive damage or even destruction of strata buildings and assets occur.
Over the last 5 years, Cordells CHIP Reports show building costs have increased by 16.5% in NSW. Increase in building costs is just one factor that may make a valuation figure redundant very quickly. For example, when severe storms or catastrophic events happen, there is typically a sharp increase, or demand surge, for both labour and materials which can cause a spiking in these cost of up to 50% or more.
Proposal: To help buildings have the correct sum insured amount by keeping pace with cost increases, we propose:
– Valuations be completed at least every three years, and
– A minimum level of annual indexing on Building Sum Insured amounts is made mandatory.
Outcome: The potential for a gap in cover is reduced, helping to lower the financial exposure for consumers.
2. Allowance for increases in expenditure (Strata Schemes Mgt Regulations 2010 (REGS) 12 (b))
Issue: Under the current calculation shown in the REGS, only 18 months from the inception of the policy is factored in for expenditure increases for the reinstatement of strata buildings. Should a loss occur on the last day of the insurance period i.e. date of expiry this allows for just 6 months to get the damage assessed, for building plans to be approved and completion of all works. We believe this to be impractical and unrealistic as experience shows that very few buildings can be reinstated to a ‘business as usual’ status within 6 months.
Proposal: It is proposed that the 18 month term is adjusted to commence from the last day of the policy, instead of the current start date of the policy. This will extend the 6 months to 18 months for increases in expenditure costs, should a loss occur on the last day of cover i.e.
‘(b) the estimated amount by which expenditure referred to in the preceding paragraphs may increase during the period of 18 months following the last day of the damage policy.’
Alternatively, the same outcome can be reached if the term is adjusted to 30 months from the commencement date of the policy, which will also provide for an 18 month period from the last day of the plicy.
Outcome: By extending the term by an additional 12 months, this produces a more practical timescale which reduces risk and exposure for consumers.
3. Liability Cover
Issue: The current minimum cover of $10 million for Liability Insurance was set more than 10 years ago and is out of step with today’s strata living requirements. The risk of being sued for injury or death beyond the historically set $10 million limit places the Owners Corporation at risk, and untimely, exposes the personal assets of the consumer or lot owner.
You may recall the recent and very sad case of a three-year-old girl who fell approximately seven metres from a balcony in Auburn. And only last month, five people were injured after a balcony collapsed in Sydney’s north-west.
With more people living and visiting strata communities, the Government needs to legislate for a more realistic level of cover to ensure when tragedy strikes, adequate funds are there to help those who need it.
Proposal: Update the cover by re-setting the current the minimum requirement to $30m (or possibly higher) for Public Liability cover.
Outcome: The risk of a large deficit in funds is reduced, and the new limit will lower the risk to the consumer of having to foot the bill for any financial short fall.
4. Office Bearers Cover
Issue: Those who serve on an Executive Committee do so in a very selfless manner but are often simply unaware of the risks they face, personally. An office bearer, similar to a director, can be sued for wrongful acts but unlike someone sitting on a company board, are often left unprotected or inadequately protected because they do not have the equivalent of officers liability insurance in place.
The Government needs to support those who volunteer their time free of charge by serving on an executive committee. At the moment, Office Bearers are exposed as cover is an optional only cover. So volunteers serving on the Owners Corporation, can find themselves held responsible for any financial shortfall when a substantial loss occurs and as such are open to legal action by individual members and other parties.
Proposal: Office Bearers Liability is mandated and furthermore, we advocate a minimum limit is prescribed.
Outcome: Greater encouragement is provided by the Government to those serving on executive committees. By making this a compulsory cover, executive committee members and the end consumer (lot owner) are better protected.
CHU Underwriting Agencies Pty Ltd (CHU) is Australia’s leading strata insurance specialist, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the strata insurance requirements of Owners Corporations and unit owners. A separate and more detailed written submission, covering these and other aspects of strata insurance, will be submitted by CHU to the Minister’s Office.
Scruby
February 28, 2012 at 5:32 am
Parking
My main concern is about parking.
I have been a guest speaker at the NSW Rangers’ conference, every year for the past 4 years.
The form would also state that if there was no response, a penalty (suggested the same as for parking overtime on a Parking Meter of $88) be imposed. This may be repeated each day.
It may make the system much simpler if Management Committees restricted parking in any one bay to a maximum of 24 hours as we have tried to do in our block (see attached).
Perhaps this could be the state standard and regulated as such, unless the Owner’s Corporation gives specific permission otherwise.
smiler112
February 28, 2012 at 5:37 am
CTTT
Last year the Shadow Minister for Fair Trading wrote to me that "The CTTT is a very low cost forum established to assist in rapid and inexpensive conciliation."
Strataspheric
February 28, 2012 at 9:47 am
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL PARTICIPANTS
CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO ALL THE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTED OF THEIR TIME AND EXPERIENCES TO THIS FORUM. COPIED TO A BOOK FORM, THE TOTAL OF ALL COMMENTS WILL FILL MORE THAN 660 PAGES. IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED AS A SOCIAL DOCUMENT ON LIFE IN OUR TIMES.
THANKS IS OWED TO THOSE WHO IN POOR ENGLISH TRIED TO VENT THEIR FRUSTRATIONS, AND TO THE ARTICULATE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE WHO SOMETIMES LIKE ME HAD TO LEARN THE ACT TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEIR PROPERTY WHEN MADNESS AFFECTED OTHER OWNERS IN THE SAME SCHEME.
ANGER AND HUGE LOSSES BROUGHT ME TO A DETERMINATION TO TRY TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE NOT TO SUFFER THE SAME. YOUR STORIES AND EXPERIENCES AMAZED ME AND ENCOURAGED ME. THIS POLITICAL ACTION SHOULD CONTINUE BY LETTER WRITING AND FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT THOSE WHO INVEST THEIR LIFE SAVINGS INTO STRATA SCHEMES, SO THAT THEY CAN LIVE THERE PEACEFULLY AND THEIR INVESTMENT IS PRESERVED.
THE GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BOW TO COMMERICAL INTERESTS, EITHER DEVELOPERS OR MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND TRULY REFORM THE ACT – TO PROTECT THOSE WHO CHOSE TO LIVE IN SMALL COMMUNITIES. OTHERWISE THERE MAY JUST FORM A STRATA PARTY.
THANKS AGAIN.
amen
February 28, 2012 at 10:19 am
address the imbalance
I have just gone through an expensive experience where the tenant has skipped out leaving me short over 10 weeks rent (over $5,000), done $8,500 of damage and the bond is not even close to covering the loss. I have taken them to the tribunal more than once and the system is only a great delaying tactic for them, making 3 promises to meet a payment plan and then not coming through. the system does not support owners at all. these people cannot be evicted. the process takes too long, is expensive if the owner has to get a lawyer involved each time and the tenant does what they want. And how do you find them when they have skipped out? the present method doesn’t work. And how do you stop the vandalism and damage? A poultry 4 weeks bond is no deterant. The police can’t do anything either. they present system is not about equity for both parties. it needs to be addressed.
Also, I think any owner, and for that matter tenants too I am sure would like a better self help system that spells out the CTTT, the process and unravelling the language, jargon and system so that either party can attend to their affairs through this environment and not be dressed down by members who are clearly frustrated too, but navigate with a little confidence and know what to deliver up when and proper transparency of what to expect next. The call centre people are great and try their level best but something that explains forms and a better laid out web environment would be a start. the forms are buried in the bowls of the site.
Colray
February 28, 2012 at 10:34 am
Pets, tenants & tiles
A suggestion has been made that owners corporations should not be able to ban pets. However I think that the present law should stay. This permits an owners corporation to allow all pets, some small pets, or no pets at all. This is the fair way to do it and enables the cases for and against pets to be argued by the owners.
Another suggestion has been made that tenants should be able to vote at owners corporation meetings. This would not be fair to the owners who have paid for their ownership. Instead, the present law should stay. This allows an owner to nominate someone else as a proxy for him or her. That person could be the owner’s tenant.
I agree with another suggestion that the definition of common property should be changed so that wall or floor tiles are part of a lot and not part of the common property. This would make it easier for owners carrying out a minor renovation of a kitchen or bathroom. The tiles are not seen by persons outside the lot, the building structure would not be affected, and the principle of lot property being property within the airspace would be substantially adhered to.
chook123
February 28, 2012 at 11:06 am
Executive Committees (ECs)/Strata Managers/Disputes
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (ECS)
1. the composition of Ecs needs to be addressed by, for example:-
2. polling and proxies should be prohibited at elections for ECs; a few proprietors with LARGE unit entitlements (UEs) and or a SINGLE person WITH MULTIPLE PROXIES can and do, as opposed to a larger number of proprietors with smaller UEs, stack ECs for their own purposes; after all, the wealthy only have ONE vote at State & Federal elections; being wealthy doesn’t entitle them to more than one vote;
3. non proprietors should be barred unless there are no nominations by or on behalf of proprietors;
4. persons with a potential or actual conflict of interest should be expressly disqualified;
5. preference should be given to resident proprietors;
6. preference should be given to resident proprietors who have relevant qualifications or training relating to strata schemes;
7. EC members should have fixed terms (eg 3 years) and be ineligible then for re-election unless no alternative eligible proprietors nominate; &
8. EC members should disqualify themselves from voting on matters in which they have a potential of actual conflict of interest, or financial interest whether directly or indirectly.
STRATA MANAGERS
1. should be made more accountable and should be more regulated:
2. at least, there should be a name and shame register for serial recalcitrant managers who repeatedly fail to return telephone calls or respond to email messages.
DISPUTES
There should be more "teeth" in enforcing compliance with By-Laws and a speedier process for dealing with breaches etc.
michael chacha
February 28, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Exec Comm n Strata Manager
I agree with most of the points raised by Chook except his point 5..
I wish to add ALL EC members are obigated to sign a formal documet pledge/obligation to ensure that they do not have any pecuniary interests and that they will ensure that the welfare and interests of all the owners will be protected irregardless.
Point 6 is a great suggestion. as is the case with Chooks’ point 8
I wish to add lso if an EC member has breached the Regulations or By Laws there should be a financial penalty system that is accessed on the severity of each breach. There should be provisions for instant dismissal i,e breach Sec 65A damage to Common Property if a notice to comply is issued and the recipient of the Notices does not comply with the order within 21 days or something to that effect
michael chacha
February 28, 2012 at 4:33 pm
The deadline is up But its not OVER
The fat lady sings but it aint over..I suggest that all those who are concerned send letters , call, e mail n make appointments with your Local member who will be voting on or submitting changes to the regulations. Lets put our ideas clearly and firmly to the political representatives.
Its apparent that the Regulations under the Strata Scheme DO VERY LITTLE in Deterring ofences etc..
SOME HOW there has to be a SORT OF COMPROMISE and a comfortable position where the present sysem has more enforceable laws that have teeth. To delienate an area of Strata Scheme Regulations and actual Home ownership.
REPEAT .Finding a compromise wheras Strata Scheme and home ownership systems n responsiblities meet. Bring Strata Laws closer to HOME OWNERSHIP LAWS
People who own their own home as a rule take care of their own home the yard etc in Strata Common property Issues are controlled by a select few i.e. Exec Committee and Strata Manager.
Somehow there has to be a compromise found that can join the two areas more closely..Make a system that ensures Strata owners their own responsibilty and involvement with their scheme..
THE PRESENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK..People who own their OWN HOMES ARE MUCH BETTER OFF.
I WISH THAT I HAD NEVER PURCHASED A STRATA PROPERTY OWNING A HOME IS FAR FAR BETTER
Kaunitzj
February 28, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Section 65A of the Act: Apartment Renovation Approvals and Bui
Section 65A of the Act:
Apartment Renovation Approvals and Building Maintenance
Background
Chapter 3 of the Act – Key management areas in the Act sets out the key management areas and related responsibilities of the Owners Corporation (OC)
In particular, s61(1) makes it clear the OC has management responsibility for common property
“(1) An owners corporation has, for the benefit of the owners:
(a) the management and control of the use of the common property of the strata scheme concerned, and
(b) the administration of the strata scheme concerned”.
and s62 sets out the duties of the OC in this respect:
“62 What are the duties of an owners corporation to maintain and repair property?
(1) An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation.”
The Act does not define the precise meaning of terms such a “maintain in a state of good and serviceable repair” but the net effect of the powers conferred in s61 and the duties specified in s62 is that the OC, and its executive body the EC, has considerable flexibility in maintaining the state and quality of common property beyond fulfilling its s62 duties in a minimalist sense, similar to that of any property owner.
In a somewhat indirect way, model by-law 5 in Schedule 1 of the Act also provides the basis for apartment owners to renovate their lots:
By-law “5 Damage to common property
(1) An owner or occupier of a lot must not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property without the approval in writing of the owners corporation.
(2) An approval given by the owners corporation under subclause (1) cannot authorise any additions to the common property.”
By-law 5 gives the OC and the EC the power to approve apartment renovations that involve unavoidable damage to common property such as tiles and waterproofing attached to floors and common walls during bathroom renovations. NSW Fair Trading advice in response to the question ‘What is the simplest way to approve apartment renovations, including bathroom renovations in the scheme?” is as follows:
“An owner would need to request in writing to the Secretary or the managing agent before commencing a bathroom renovation where common property is involved. The simplest and quickest option for the owners corporation is to give consent under by-law 5. Decisions of this nature can be made at an executive committee meeting or general meeting by a majority vote”.
Whilst the above provisions of the Act provide for the repair, maintenance and renovation of common property and of lots, until 2004 the Act was silent regarding works which would significantly change common property by adding or modifying common property in a way that represent a departure from the strata plan or architectural plans on which current building approvals are based, in other words, which introduce changes to common property as it is currently defined. The Act was amended in 2004 by Section 65A, which states:
“65A Owners corporation may make or authorise changes to common property
(1) For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property, an owners corporation or an owner of a lot may take any of the following action, but only if a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed:
(a) add to the common property,
(b) alter the common property
(c) erect a new structure on the common property.”
Introducing the amendments into parliament on4/12/2003 , the Minister for Fair Trading explained the intent of s65A as follows:
“The bill makes it clear that the owners corporation has the necessary power to add to, alter, or erect new structures on common property or allow others to do so. This previously uncertain area has often resulted in bylaws being devised to overcome the doubtfulness of the situation. The powers of the owners corporation and the responsibility for ongoing maintenance of common property affected in this aspect of strata life will now be made clear to all concerned.”
The Issue
It is clear from the above that the intent of introducing s65A of the Act was not to constrain the activities of the OC to maintain common property or to complicate the approval of routine apartment renovations by owners. Nevertheless there is a danger of exactly this happening.
Some strata lawyers have been interpreting the term “alter common property” in s65A of the Act to apply toALL works affecting common property not just modifications which alter common property in the sense that the works represent departures from existing plans and specifications.
“Renovations to replace bathroom tiles and waterproofing are clearly ‘alteration’ to the common property for which a special resolution of the owners corporation is required”
These lawyers maintain that the Executive Committee no longer has the power to approve routine apartment renovations that involve bathroom renovations under
By-law 5.
NSW Fair Trading disagrees with this view:
“A resolution under section 65a of the Act is only required where an owners corporation or an owner proposes to add, alter, or erect a new structure on common property for the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property of the scheme. Consequently this provision is not applicable to the renovation of bathrooms by owners to their individual lots”.
Adjudication of a recent case arising from this disagreement resulted in the Adjudicator ruling in agreement with the former view (of lawyers) but with even more disturbing consequences:
“It is not in dispute in this matter that laundry tiles and the waterproofing membrane constitute common property. In my view removing these items and replacing them with different tiles and a new waterproofing membrane constitutes altering the common property, unless such work is done by the Owners Corporation for the purpose of maintenance or to repair defects.”
At the time of writing this decision is under appeal. The appeal argues that this ruling does not reflect the intentions of the Act, that it is unreasonable that exactly the same work should under some conditions be considered to change and alter the common property but not under other circumstances and that the consequences of the ruling have detrimental effects on the operation of strata schemes.
Legal strata lawyers and the adjudication decision reli es on a 2009 Supreme Court case, Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan
For example, whilst the works the OC normally carries out under its s62 duties to “ maintain common property in good and serviceable repair” usually involves the repair, replacement, renewal or restoration of common property, Stolfa points out that under some circumstances the OC may be required to carry out alterations and additions to ensure the integrity or serviceability of the building. Under such circumstances the OC may carry out alterations and additions as a s62 duty as "repairs and maintenance” and approval under s65A in such cases is not required.
However, these Stolfa rulings take on a different meaning if it is assumed that the term “alterations and additions” should be used in a broad sense to also include works which only involve repair, restoration, renewal or replacement of parts of common property. The controversial ruling arises from this difference in interpretation.
Should the broad interpretation of s65A prevail it is likely to have a number of adverse consequences for owners and for strata management:
It is clear that s65A was not intended to complicate the approval of routine apartment renovations or to limit the freedom of executive committees to act in line with the collective wishes of owners as they best see fit. The broad interpretation of s65A makes no sense and it is important to address the ambiguity and confusion which is now arising as a result of the institutionalising of the inappropriate interpretation of s65A
Solution
Section 65A(1) should be modified to make clear that it refers to works that change or modify common property as it is defined for the scheme and not to works that simply repair, replace, renew, repair or restore the condition of common property as it is currently defined.
The following change in wording of s65A is possible solution:
“65A Owners corporation may make or authorise changes to common property
(1) For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property, an owners corporation or an owner of a lot may take any of the following action, but only if a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed:
(a) add to the common property,
(b)
altermodify the common property, resulting in departure from the strata plan, currently applicable architectural drawings or other specifications(c) erect a new structure on the common property.”
and adding a new clause:
(7) The provisions of this section do not apply to works and renovations, which merely repair, renew, restore common property or replace parts of common property without changing the nature of the common property involved.”
kates
February 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Strata Pets
Pet ownership in strata buildings has a significant impact on the lives of all of us who live in strata buildings. There seems to be little information about for those of us who want to have a pet. I have found a great web site for this: see http://www.stratapets.com.au
ISNSW
February 29, 2012 at 12:23 am
Review of Strata & Community Title Laws
Review of Strata & Community Titles Laws
The Institution of Surveyors NSW (ISNSW) commends the State Government in undertaking a root and branch review of the NSW Strata and Community Title Laws. In the current land development climate where medium density and high density housing is being promoted by government it is critically important that we have a strong and resilient titling system. This system must allow for flexibility in the types of development currently in vogue in housing, commercial and industrial development and have the capacity to accommodate development form yet to be devised.
ISNSW has over 1000 members who are Land Surveyors registered by the State of NSW to prepare plans of subdivision for the purpose of property transfer. More and more these plans are strata and community title subdivisions.
In addition the Building Professionals Board of NSW has accredited 24 persons to issue Strata Certificates in lieu of Local Government. Of the 24 accredited persons, 10 are Registered Land Suveyors.
Several members are also Strata Managers and it is from an amalgam of expertise of these three specialties in the Strata and Community Title community that the views expressed in this paper derive
ISSUES WITH STRATA LEGISLATION
ISSUE A – UNIT ENTITLEMENTS
Under the Strata Development Act allocation of unit entitlements for a new strata plan does not have to be based on a professional valuation nor signed by a registered valuer. However if there is a dispute about the allocation of unit entitlements then, in considering a re-allocation of unit entitlements, the Strata Management Act requires that CTTT is provied with a valuation of the strata lots at the time of registration of the strata plan which is to be prepared by a registered valuer. On average there is one such dispute before the CTTT every fortnight which is at a significant public cost. The Community Legislation requires that the unit entitlements for a community plan are certified by a registered valuer. Further the word "value" has not been defined by the legislation.
RECOMMENDATION.
ISSUE B – There are many ongoing disputes regarding who is responsible for maintaining parts of a strata scheme. The owners corporation has the responsibility to maintain the common property. This responsibility is not in dispute regarding maintenance of common property items such as the roof, lift, stairways and driveway of a building. Numerous disputes arise when, for example, each lot in a strata building has its own hot water service and 70% of the hot water services are located within the respective lot but 30% of the hot water services are located outside of the lot which they service. The hot water services may be situated in the ceiling space of a common property corridor or are outside the building and are standing on common property. The issue then arises as to who is responsible to maintain these 30% of hot water servies. They are located on common property so by the law the owners corporation is obliged to maintain them. However the other 70% of owners say that they have to maintain their own hot water services and so should the other 30% of owners. This is an example of a maintenance dispute which is dealt with on a daily basis within NSW’s 70,000+ strata plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUE C
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is often asked by the general public to provide advice on who has the responsibility to maintain a part of a strata scheme. Quite often the OFT seeks advice from the office of Land & Property Information (LPI) to clarify if the said part of the building is shown as common property on a strata plan. In so doing, registered strata plans are being used as the source of information to determine maintenance responsibilities.
Strata plans are being used to try to determine if such items as electric motors, hot water heaters, sun louvres, pavers, pergolas, timber decks etc are common property or not so as to determine the responsibility for maintenance. The primary role of a strata plan is to determine the boundaries of the strata lots and not to be used to determine (for example) if the electric motor for a garage door is common property or not.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Responsibility of maintenance of strata building is a strata management matter and should be addressed in the Strata Management Legislation. It is suggested that a schedule of "maintenance by-laws" be established in the Strata Management Regulations. Instead of attempting to resolve maintenance issues by reference to strata plans a schedule of by-laws could state who has the responsibility to maintain items within a building. The items to be addressed in these maintenance by-laws would be those that have generated ongoing controversy regarding the responsibility of maintenance.
Samples of such by-laws are:-
These examples are only put forward to promoted discussion and the division of responsibilities are only suggestions. Such by-laws could be amended/repealed by owners corporation as required. However there would be a set of "model" maintenance by-laws which would consider the appropriate issues.
At present, a lot of time and resources are consumed by OFT and LPI in dealing with these strata maintenance matters.
It is noted that the only references to maintenance matters in the current Model By-laws extend to windows and security doors. There is a great deal of scope for by-laws to consider many other maintenance matters.
ISSUE D
CTTT consideration of disputes involving Strata Schemes.
RECOMMENDATION
That any tribunal must contain a qualified person on the panel & a copy of the registered Strata Plan when considering disputes involving strata schemes. This could be achieved by setting up a structure similar to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) wherein it has Non Judicial Members. These are a Ministerial Appointment. The role of these lay Members is to assist the Judge or any Judicial Members determine a Hearing (dispute).
Where required (e.g. a complaint against a Vet or an Accredited Certifier etc) a Non Judicial Members sits on the Bench beside the Presiding Judicial Member and hears the Matter. The Non Judicial Members’ opinion is asked for and is relied on by the Presiding Judicial Member for the Deicision.
ISSUE E
DEFINITIONS
The definition of a Strata Plan of resubdivision needs to be clarified.
ISSUE F
Strata Certificates cannot issue until OC’s issue.
Frequently Councils are making condition of Development approvals that "a Strata Certificate" shall not issue until an Occuaption Certificate has issued. This is an unnecessary impost and cause of delay in the registration of Strata Plan as the consumer is protected by the Conveyancing Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Amend Clauses 37 and 37A to the effect that "the issue of a strata certificate should not be contingent on the issue of an Occupation Certificate."
ISSUES WITH THE COMMUNITY TITLE LEGISLATION
The Community Legislation was enacted in 1990. Over the past 22 years there has not been a significant legislative review. In essence, the Community Legislation allows for land to be subdivided into private lots and communal land on which communal facilities can be built.
ISSUE CA
Staged Development
There have been many successful community title schemes created in NSW over the past 22 years. However many more projects which should have been developed as a community scheme were not developed at all due to the legislative hindrances relating to staged development of a neighbourhood, precinct or community scheme. The issue eing that it is not possible to create additional association property in a staged subdivision without obtaining the unanimous approval from the relevant association.
As a comparison, since 1985, under the Strata Legislation there has been a staged strata development process which has worked well and has stood the test of time. It is recommended that the community legislation adopts the legislative framework within the Strata Development Act. This would allow staged community schemes to be crried out in an orderly & transparent manner.
RECOMMENDATION
The legislative amendments include:-
There should be rigorous Communal Property in each stae. Community legislation should reflect Strata legislation
ISSUE CB
Ability to add adjoining land to a Precinct or Community Scheme
– At present, after a precinct/community scheme is created, it is not possible to add adjoinging land to that scheme. To be able to add adjoining land to a scheme would allow more flexibility in the development. It is possible to add land to an existing strata scheme.
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUE CC
Inability to subdivide community or precinct association property.
This is a hindrance as there are circumstances where the association would like to divest itself of some of its property and/or an owner within the scheme would like to acquire some of the association property.
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUE CD
Requirement for unanimous agreement
In the community legislation nearly all dealings with the community/precinct/neighbourhood association property require a unanimous resolution from the relevant association. Achieving a unanimous resolution is most difficult and very impractical. Since 1997 the strata legislation has only required a special resolution (75% majority) in dealing with matters relating to strata common property such as creating easements or subdividing common property.
RECOMMENDATION
ISSUE CE
The definition of the initial period in community and precinct schemes
The current definition requires that a third of either community or precinct development lots need to be subdivided by a subsidiary scheme before the initial period will expire for the relevant scheme. There are very few community or precinct schemes for which the initial period has automatically expired.
RECOMMENDATION
OTHER ISSUES
Difficulty in variation of Unit Entitlements
Currently the only resolution is through the CTTT
Currently we can’t undertake a strata scheme within a neighbourhood scheme
There is no opportunity to terminate a scheme in the legislation for community schemes
Consideration of community leasehold legislation.
SUMMARY
The issues detailed above are ones which surveyors and accredited strata certifiers grapple with on a daily basis. Often confusion generated by strata plans for strata managers stems not only from flaws in the plans and management statements but more from shortcomings in the underlying legislation.
The Institution considers that the recommendations herein if acted upon would go a long way to ameliorate the problems which currently exist.
Grahame Wallis
President
Institution of Surveyors New South Wales Inc.
robynest
February 29, 2012 at 1:20 am
Common property
My issues revolve around "common property", and why Body corporate money is used to say fix someones garage door or front door when clearly these are not used by everyone like the driveway is.
pjhart
February 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
Improved procedure for achieving by-law compliance
The current procedure for achieving by-law compliance is too time consuming and lacks clarity in relation to penalties for breaches. I would suggest the following improvements to the Strata Schemes Management Act and Regulation.
– Prescribe penalties for the breaching of a by-law within 24 months of the issuing of a section 45 notice, with a progressively larger penalty defined for successive breaches (eg. first offence – one penalty point, 2nd offence – two penalty points, 3rd offence – five penalty points).
– The executive committee should be authorised to impose a prescribed penalty, but the offender should have the right of appeal within 14 days of receiving notice of the penalty.
– The appeal should be done in writing and submitted to a general meeting of owners. Because of the potential conflict involved at a face to face meeting, there should be provision made for such a meeting to be held in writing. Such a meeting should only deal with the appeal.
– If the meeting confirms the penalty then the penalty becomes a debt to the relevant owner. If the lot is tenanted then the owner may recover the penalty through the bond or other means.
– Perhaps provision should be made for an appeal to the CTTT against the decision of a general meeting within 14 days if there is clear evidence of a breach of procedural fairness.
concerned citizen
February 29, 2012 at 1:32 am
concerned citizen
These are our concerns.
towo
February 29, 2012 at 1:41 am
Passive smoking
Whilst I respect an individuals right to smoke, I do not believe it is ok for that person’s passive cigarette smoke to make its way into my apartment, where it can affect the health of all from babies to adults – we wll know the evidence is compelling that cigarette smoke is detrimental to your health.
Smoking should be restricted in apartments, and other strata living, to not be allowed to make it’s way into other apartments by way of wind direction or other means of being carried from the actual cigarette to affect others.
Smoke being a substance that manages to make its way through the smallest of cracks needs to be limited so that others who share strata living are not negatively impacted by it.
This to me is common sense and also shows respect for fellow human beings.
Here’s looking forward to the Government’s response…
KR
Rygate Surveyors
February 29, 2012 at 2:21 am
Surveyor’s Perspective
Strata Schemes
As surveyors working with and creating with strata schems we would like to see a revision of the current Strata laws making it manditory for Unit Entitlements to be based on value and that such value must be provided by a registered valuer in a similar manner to the current Community Scheme legislation.
Currently, many issues of maintenance and ownership are up to the prudent surveyor to identify and allocate in the Strata Plan before the scheme has been created. Issues such as who owns and maintains the tiles on the balcony (are they common property or part of a lot) or a hot water heater in common property (which is for the exclusive use of one lot) or the batteries in the remote control for the garage door, would be much more effectively dealt with in the by-laws which can be amended by the owners corportation once the strata scheme is up and running. The establishment of a set "maintenance by-laws" and the inclusion of a definition for "implied exclusive use" in the legislation would go a long way to solving many issues resulting from the management of a strata scheme. This would also remove much unneccessary clutter from the strata plan.
We look forward to the review of the current Strata legislation.
Pam Christie
February 29, 2012 at 2:25 am
concerns for the aged
Aged are encouraged to downsize when they become empty nesters. More housing for the up and coming young, with families. Illness, death, expence and loneliness seems to help the aged make up the decision to sell and move into a smaller home.
J Sadleir
February 29, 2012 at 2:26 am
NSW Parliamentary Committee – Strata Schemes Management Act Inqu
NSW Parliamentary Committee – Strata Schemes Management Act Inquiry
I am the owner of one unit in a two-unit strata scheme. The property is a duplex now twenty years old. I have been responsible for operating the scheme for the last 10 years and there have been a few changes of ownership and tenancy in both units. The scheme has always been operated without a professional strata manager or accountant to minimise expenses and the strata levy. Apart from easements and a shared wall there is virtually no common property. Each owner has been responsible for maintaining their lot personally rather than being a shared responsibility through the strata plan. A quarterly strata levy of $250 is paid into the strata plan’s cheque account and is largely used to pay the annual cost of the building insurance on the property by cheque signed by both unit owners.
Based on my experience of this property, I have a number of concerns with the NSW Strata Management Act & Regulations (the “NSW Strata Legislation”) particularly as it applies to the operation of two-unit schemes.
Accordingly, I wish to submit four broad recommendations to the Inquiry that I believe would assist small scheme operators to run their schemes cost-effectively in accordance with the law. I apologise in advance for the scanty nature of this submission and the lack of professionalism in its preparation.
Two-Unit Strata Plans – Allow Exemptions
I strongly recommend the Committee review the NSW Strata Legislation to clarify the operation of two-unit strata plans under those arrangements. The legislation is necessarily designed for schemes that have more than two units and a substantial amount of common property.
Complying with those requirements when there are only two units and no common property is expensive and uneconomic.
Creating a separate account with large strata levies to provide a pool of funds from which future maintenance on the building can be drawn down creates the need for strata managers, investments, detailed accounts, auditing and anti-fraud measures. Costly overheads for a two-unit scheme.
Two units do not have the economies of scale to justify those expenses. Individual unit owners financing and paying for maintenance costs as and when they arise works well. Unfortunately under the existing legislation it could happen that a future owner buying a lot in a 2-unit scheme that has been neglected could demand an equal contribution from the two unit owners to repair the strata corporation.
I think the law should incorporate exemptions that allow 2-unit schemes many exemptions from the Strata Law as it currently stands.
Web Publish All Strata Law Cases Judgements – Poor Man’s Legal Advice
I recommend that all NSW Strata Law case judgements be published in full on free-to-air websites.
Many strata plans are operated by well-meaning unit owners doing their best to run a scheme for which they have no relevant professional training. Managers and agents of schemes may be able to assist with many of the problems that arise, but often the legislation, by-laws and management of a scheme raises questions that have often been addressed in judgements handed down previously.
Written judgements provide a poor man’s source of legal advice particularly for the smaller schemes (less than 10 units). They provide examples of how particular situations were addressed by the Courts and suggest appropriate solutions. Often they provide specific examples of how one might approach solving the types of problem that confront strata schemes.
While specific legal advice from a qualified professional with access to the latest law is always preferable, it is always expensive and its use is necessarily limited to the most difficult questions. Being able to research such problems through old judgements at least ensures that the owners are better informed about potential issues when they approach a legal adviser.
I think you will find that at present only a very selective sample of judgements are published on the relevant NSW Government and Austlii websites. The latest privately-published case reports are expensive and beyond the reach of the ordinary man.
I recognise, however, that the judiciary and the legal profession rely heavily on the editorial boards of private publishers to produce from a selective sample of judgements, a consistent interpretation of the law as it stands at any point in time.
Provide Pro-Forma Sample Accounts and all other documents required by the Strata Legislation on the NSW Government Website
I recommend that the NSW Government website provide sample pro-forma accounts and samples of the most common strata scheme documents including minutes, strata rolls, certificates, plans, deeds.
I believe providing such information ensures all strata owners can quickly develop a clear understanding of their obligations and what they should expect from their strata scheme, the executive committee and strata agents. Such measures reduce the risk of fraud, increase the alertness of owners and ensure that schemes are managed in accordance soundly and efficiently in accordance with the law.
Standardise Strata Law across Australia.
As with all NSW State Legislation, I strongly recommend that the NSW Government’s Strata Legislation be consistent with and preferably mirror the equivalent legislation in the other states and territories of Australia.
That approach strengthens the Australian Commonwealth by reducing barriers to the free flow of services within Australia. It also means that State Governments are better able to provide the Australian public with comprehensive, well-drafted legislation that is accompanied by extensive supporting educational material (eg descriptive brochures, pro-forma accounts etc). Case law develops more quickly to clarify the interpretation of the law. Strata professionals are able to transfer their skills and compete with each other. Strata owners are better able to transfer their knowledge of the law from one state to another.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like a more detailed submission on any of these recommendations.
gp
February 29, 2012 at 2:34 am
Some Thoughts
lynette bennett
February 29, 2012 at 3:13 am
Some Suggestions
1. There should be a limitation of number of proxies held by one person depending on the number of units.
2. It should NOT be possible to limit the number of people elected to the Executive Committee to fewer than the upper limit. For example in our block of 24, 9 members are possible. Even through 6 people were nominated at our last AGM a motion was passed saying that the EC should comprise only 5 people thus blocking a new owner. In previous years we have had as few as 3, although others accepted nomination.
3. In tendering for business the Management firms undercut one another. As a result they are unable to charge enough to properly manage the scheme. They rely on one or two people in the block to do the spadework and these people become too powerful. There should be a minimum cost of management. It seems that it is more economical for the Managing Agent to manage a large block. Therefore, the minimum cost should be set higher for small blocks.
4. In our block the EC has not physically met for over eighteen months (except to elect the Chairman etc. straight after the AGM.) Decisions are made by postal voting Interchange of opinions is done by email. This excludes the unit holders who are not on the EC from having much idea of what is going on. Email has changed the necessity for the EC to physically meet but their email exchanges should include all owners willing to take part.
anon
February 29, 2012 at 3:18 am
Suggestions
1. Tenants – unless tenants have a long-term association with the building, it should not be possible for tenants to contribute their opinion to the management of the building. Tenants and owners have different agendas and it is difficult to reconcile their wants. Tenants could perhaps be offered an official method of input if necessary, eg via their landlord but should not be able to attend Strata meetings directly.
2. By-laws – the creation/amending/deletion of by-laws is onerous, time consuming and costly. There has to be a better system somehow! Enforcing by-laws is also cumbersome and fraught with peril. We need to stop people feeling bullied, harassed and reduce stress for owners.
3. Strata Managing Agents – there are so many tales of woe! It is rare to hear people praising their managing agent – it is a thankless job and often the people in these positions do not act in a timely way, are unhelpful and lack customer focus and are unable to act in an unbiased manner. It is common to find Strata Plans lurching from one bad managing agent to another. Better training, a feedback rating system or some other mechanism should be put in place so that Owners Corporations can more easily select which agent to engage.
4. Common Language – interpreting strata laws is often difficult due to the language used. Meanings are often ambiguous and interpreted in different ways. Language should be kept in plain English so that everyone has equal access. Also consideration should be made to have documents translated for key main community languages.
5. Barbeques – the use of barbeques on balconies should be banned. They are a fire hazard. In particular gas cylinders have been known to explode causing damage to strata buildings. Even hibachi style barbecues have an open flame which has potential to cause fire. Also smoke and smell can disturb other residents easily.
6. Other hazards on balconies and courtyards – increasingly in winter, gas-powered portable heaters are being used to heat outdoor areas. This is also a fire hazard and requires the carry and storage of flammable liquids in order for their use.
7. Fire alarms – under current legislation, landlords must ensure working fire alarms are fitted in rented property. However, there is no stipulation for the Owners Corporation to make this mandatory in owner-occupied properties – nor is there a mechanism which allows the OC to enforce their installation.
8. New technology and trends in living – the advent of large plasma television and home theatre has created new problems – installation on walls technically requires strata approval as this is common property. Also noise issues are another problem as the sheer size creates added volume. Perhaps use of these should be limited to set times.
9. Pets – strata plans need to be more pet friendly. However, at the same time there is need for a good but fair management. Blanket policies which restrict the keeping of pets are not acceptable and do not make sense. More acknowledgement needs to be made that some pets are more conductive to being kept in small places than others eg. Fish guinea pigs do not make noise and kept properly confined pose no problems to other residents. Likewise most cats are quite happy to live entirely indoors and enjoy spending long hours quietly sleeping whilst their owners are at work. They do not require to be toileted or walked outdoors; and a well-cared cat not create much noise.
Clovereconomics
February 29, 2012 at 3:29 am
Garden Maintenance
My opinion is that tenants need more autonomy in the garden for tasks like weeding, planting shrubs and pruning. Often, the Owners Corporation disregards garden maintenance, as they don’t live here, they don’t really care about the garden. Our block currently has an asthma weed infestation, and little is done to combat the problem.
Jim North
February 29, 2012 at 3:31 am
sub section
Q1. Introduce a sub section to deal with the aspect and precise in protection of Residents/Owners of Strata Title Retirement Villages.
Q2. as above
Q3. as above
Q4. To ensure that the Residents of Retirements Villages have clear and well defined clauses. The purpose should be to protect such Ageing Members of the community and Residents from Operators who undertake measures against such people.
John Markley
February 29, 2012 at 3:37 am
SM Agent Proxies
It appears that a licensed SM Agent can appoint several persons to act for him in various capacities. Such persons need no licence, indeed no relevant qualification at all. My experience in 3 Strata Schemes and 6 SM Agents has been that once the Agency Contract has been signed then an unqualified person is appointed by the Licensed SMA to “look after” the Strata Plan. This may be generally suitable for day to day routine matters. However it is not suitable for Annual General Meetings or for EGM’s particularly where serious questions may have to be dealt with.
lens
February 29, 2012 at 3:38 am
sinking fund
I am the Chairman of the Body Corporate of Strata Plan 3190.
Geoff Warren-Smith
February 29, 2012 at 3:50 am
Levies
In the ACT and NSW there are 4 Stake Holders, namely:
C.F.Wilson
February 29, 2012 at 4:02 am
Tenants Abuse
I would like to raise objections to my money (Sinking Fund) being spent on my repairs caused by wear and damage caused by numerous tenants abuse of the RENTED villa in my complex of 3, this villa changes tenants about every 6 months.
Eric Hughes
February 29, 2012 at 4:26 am
Parking
As an owner of Th38 since 31-8-2001, I believe all Owners Tenants and Residents should be required by Law to sign the necessary document sating that they have received all the By-laws prior to purchase or renting in a Strata Complex.
Candace Douglass
February 29, 2012 at 4:39 am
Preventing Children Falling from Residential Buildings
In 2008, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead (CHW) identified falls by children from residential buildings as an increasing cause of injury, often associated with serious and fatal outcomes. Further to this, the number of injuries with a high Injury Severity Score1 was also a factor in identifying the significance of the issue.
Robyn Rawling
February 29, 2012 at 4:53 am
Retirement Village
The following observations and thoughts are those of a resident in a Strata Unit Retirement Village. The operating rights to the Village were sold about 3 years ago to a company with little (or no)experience in operating Strata Villages, but with extensive experience of Leasehold Villages. Consequently, the operator (through the Village Manager) seems to think that the Executive of the Owners Corporation is there for its convenience and to raise levies to provide it with money for it to spend as it sees fit. In many instances the operator (through the manager), takes it upon itself to grant permission to new residents to do things which according to the by-laws are the responsibility of the Executive. When taxed with these occurrences the excuse is “I will take care of it”, (but never does). Unfortunately, the majority of the residents moved into the Village so that they could lead a carefree life and are not interested in the “politics” of running the Village Common Property.
as now being revised), or any Deed of Management with the Operator, which previously exists within any Retirement Village. (This would only come into effect should the Act and Deed of Management be at odds with one another.)
ckofsydney
February 29, 2012 at 4:59 am
Termination of a strata scheme
Termination of a strata scheme should be permitted if 90% of the unit numbers ,or 90% of the Unit entitlement approve of the termination.(if not 90% some other fair figure)The value of the land ,or the ammount payable when the strata scheme is terminated and sold, should be divided by unit entitlement and distributed accordingly to each lot owner.However each lot and its Unit entitlements should be re valued upon termination sale to account for each lot owners true value at the time of termination of the scheme.
Proxies to be replaced by a Ballot or Voting Papers; Misuse of proxies can occur ,to stop this a voting paper should be sent to each lot owner requesting it be filled out and submitted.Perhaps make it mandatory with those voting recieveing a slight discount off their levies.A simple explanatory note should be provided for every motion to allow owners to make informed decisions if absent. Open ended proxies are an issue issue and this should be changed or limited.
chook123
February 29, 2012 at 5:17 am
Executive Committees (ECs)/Strata Managers/Disputes
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (ECS)
Ancestor
February 29, 2012 at 6:05 am
Review of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996
I will start with a dramatic, some might say far-fetched statement: the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 permits, even encourages, fascist-like power groups to obtain and maintain control of strata complexes while at the same time failing to provide adequate mechanisms for the regulation of community living. By any practical yardstick, the Act is incapable of regulating bad behaviour, either in strata management or in strata living. The relief systems available for both – the OFT mediation and the CTTT quasi-court processes are manifestly incompetent and inadequate. They are tiresome, slow, bureaucratic, inconsistent, ineffective and at the end concerned to deliver law, not justice.
Penelope Hill
February 29, 2012 at 6:34 am
A simpler, clearer, more
A simpler, clearer, more transparent process to facilitate the assessment of excessive legal costs for owners, OCs and ECs.
They are all currently vulnerable to overcharging/overservicing abuses by lawyers, lawyers relying on the ignorance of strata owners, OC and EC about the whole legal costs challenging/assessment process. Some lawyers are taking advantage of the high level of hostility within litigating strata schemes, which are unable to unite against a common enemy – the legal advisers engaged to advise and assist – but are charging maybe 4-5 times a reasonable amount.
Some lawyers are NOT explaining to the clients they are supposed to be acting for exactly what they are proposing to do, failing to comply with s.309 LPA 2004 and ss.80D and 230A SSMA 1996.
Some lawyers are acting without proper OC instructions/without Special Resolutions, etc.
Howard Duncan
February 29, 2012 at 6:38 am
Submission from Regis Towers SP56443
1. Short history
Regis Towers is the largest strata plan in Australia consisting of 653 lots of mixed residential, commercial, retail and serviced apartments. It has been beset with financial irregularities and administration problems since its inception. Some of these problems include:
1) The appointment of an administrator.
2) Over three million dollars paid to one contractor for work, which is suspicious
3) Constant litigation including High Court, Supreme Court and CTTT hearings.
4) Neglect of building maintenance.
5) Regular special levies
6) An Executive Committee, which at times was either ineffective or made decisions that were in no way in the owners’ interest.
7) The previous Executive Committee did not conclude any meeting for a period of nine months.
8) The previous Executive Committee did not have a treasurer. The consequence of this was there was no control of spending and by mid-2011, it was demonstrably dysfunctional. That executive committee consisted of the main proxy holders who elected themselves and limited the number of committee members to the 5 in order to maintain control of the EC meetings.
This is a sample of the continuous difficulties experienced by the strata. It should be noted that the Executive Committees have been controlled by proxies held by real estate agents, some of whom were associated with the developer, people associated with the strata manager and other non lot-owners.
2. Why SP56443 has had so many difficulties
Three reasons are immediately apparent.
Firstly, Regis Towers represents the outcomes from a development which was not fully assessed before planning permission was granted. It is apparent that for a residential, commercial, retail and serviced apartments scheme to function as well as possible there needs to be a common purpose amongst the lot owners. However, the interests of lot owners from residential, commercial, retail and serviced apartments are different and are often in conflict. This could have been avoided by having separate strata plans inside the complex. This has been achieved at a similar development, World Square.
The second but more important than the first is proxy-farming. This practise has become common in large strata schemes. Persons who wish to gain owners votes to use in the election of committee members and make important decisions at owner’s meetings. It is often difficult to discern the authenticity of the proxies.
The fact that only some 10% of lot-owners attend owners’ meetings allows proxy holders to control these very large stratas.
4. How can Regis Towers and other strata plans achieve good management?
The difficulty lies in the present Strata Schemes Management Act and in planning permission.
It is clear that a decade of problems have at their root, the attraction to interested parties of controlling over $4,000,000 annual levies. This can be addressed in these ways:
1) Individual proxies be done away with. A strata schemes authority be set up as a proxy nominee. Where lot-owners cannot vote, they can lodge their votes through the authority, which informs the owners meeting of the outcome. Meeting agendas are submitted to the authority. What about banning proxies altogether. Any member wishing to vote on any matter on the agenda at a general meeting (apart from electing the EC) who cannot attend can send their vote in to the secretary prior to the meeting [as with absentee voting in government elections). If any new matter arises at the meeting, they don’t get to vote.
2) Proxies may not be used to elect the executive committee. It should be elected on a show-of-hands, as is the case in Queensland.
3) A ban on the soliciting of proxies or proxy-outcomes.
4) Managing agents may not hold proxies as these would now reside with the authority.
It is apparent that disputes are liable to occur between owners who rent beds and apartments by the night and resident owners and owners of commercial suites. By having these in separate stratas many of the present conflicts will cease.
Further, by having smaller budgets, it would make control of these finances less attractive.
The Owners Corporation of Regis Towers believes that the forgoing will assist in dealing with the problems of very large strata schemes. We request The Minister to give consideration to our submission to allow the present most unsatisfactory situation to be resolved.
Replies to questions
Q1. What are the main areas of the existing strata and community scheme laws you would like to see changed
The end to proxy-harvesting and multi-proxy holders dominating strata plans. Large stratas be in different strata plans for different groups.
Q2. Can you see any future issues that need to be addressed in the legislation?
That planning bodies realise the difficulties of large stratas having competing owners for resources. Each community should have its own strata plan.
Q3. How could the management of strata and community schemes be improved?
By creating an authority to hold proxies and to inspect the finances of strata schemes. This would add to the cost and hence increase levies I think
Q4. Are there any changes needed to the way disputes in strata and community schemes are resolved?
Regis Towers has expended large sums defending maters bought before the CTTT. Many of these have no substance and are continually originated by the same people. Where these claims are vexatious and frivolous, it should be easier for the owners’ corporation to recover costs.
The warranty period for the developer should be ten years. Problems arising from sub-standard works do not become apparent in the first years. An example of this is the use of sub-standard copper water pipes which are now breaking down after 8/9 years.
A Leeming
February 29, 2012 at 6:39 am
Commercial – Dammed If you, Do Dammed if you don’t
For six commercial units, the body corporate has spent over a half a million dollars since 2005 and the matter still not resolved.
We have been to the Land & Environment Court, Land & Environment Court for Contempt. CTTT, and Supreme Court to appeal the CTTT decision.
History
From the time our complex opened we were plagued with illegal activity from the car industry, drugs were a part of that activity. We made headlines throughout the state with the issues; even the Immigration department became involved. **This has been at an enormous cost to the body corporate and the community when you add the cost of Council, Police, Courts, Work cover, Tenants relocating, unable to lease units nor sell, Job loss due to businesses relocating, Loss of business, Assaults, Insurance for vandalism, health, Superannuation, Employee’s not declared.
To make it clear to all, the Body Corporate Never approved a Development Application for the Smash Repair Industry meaning Spray Painting and panel beating. We never received a DA until CTTT. The building is unsuitable for this industry. There are reports on the subject commissioned by Government Departments.
Why did this happen:
1. Since the opening of the complex Council who are the EPA regulators had received complaints regarding tenants spraying painting carcinogenic paints and working on the common property, obstruction to common property and parking etc. impacting on other lot owners (**causing the above). Council culture, Unbeknown to the body corporation, calls for a Development Application to be lodged, from the very people who they received complaints against and approves the DA. These tenants, either or both, were not registered as a businesses, nor had qualifications in the trade, and no leases in place. The owner was being pursued through the courts for failing to pay his strata fees from time of purchase. It had taken seven years before we received the money.
2. Nine years ago the body corporate found the tenant from a unit had cut a hole 9 x 5 metres in the floor of a unit (common property). Council was notified by Strata Management for the purpose to stop further destruction. Council inspected the premises. Unbeknown to the Body Corporate Council called for a Development Application to be lodged and approved the DA. Third time this has happened to us. The beginning of Solicitors. Council was forced to revoke the DA, because they did not have the approval from the Body Corporate, later they changed their mind and reinstated the DA. As you all know common property is the responsibility of Body Corporate, we had no idea of the damage to the unit, though later it was confirmed by Councils own engineer ‘declared the floor to be unsafe’. Courts: Land and Environment Court we were successful, The owner had to reinstate the common property to original state. CTTT. Owner lodged at the CTTT for approval of a new DA. The body corporate lodge their argument. CTTT refused to listen to the B/C’s argument. The Member comments were ‘I do not have time to listen to the B/C’s argument because I am going on holidays, therefore I will book a September hearing to hear your case. In the meantime I order the B/C to put their seal on the DA and Council can sought out the complaints’!!!!!!!!! After the hearing the B/C became aware The Member who heard our case attended the Land and Environment Court hearing. When discovered the member made a very quick exit. It has to be questioned “Was CTTT in collusion with the council”? Originally there were to be three members to listen to our case, apparently the others could not make it!!!!!!!!!. The B/C appealed the CTTT decision in the Supreme Court, we were successful. The matter is still on going. Why do you ask?
3. We believe the CTTT was put in place to relieve the Courts of an overload. Also for the costs to be kept to a minimal. This is not the case. It has been a very expensive and unfair exercise.
4. Laws:
a) The Body Corporate should have the power to evict a tenant.
· If a tenant continues to violate the Strata Law.
· If a tenant is found guilty of assault on B/C members and their tenants.
· Destruction of common property
· Illegal Activity
b) Development Applications:
· Councils should not be allowed to accept a Development Application unless it has the approval of the Body Corporate.
· Owners should not be allowed to lodge a DA if they are not financial
· Body Corporate should have the power to cancel Development Applications if a tenant and owner is in breach of Strata and By-Laws.
· Development Application should only refer to the Business for a maximum of three years. After the three year period the owner is to apply for an extension of the DA. To the B/C and B/C to notify the Council.
· If there is change of ownership of the business a new DA is to be lodged
· Development Applications must show Business Registration,
· Development Applications must show a Work Cover Licence No. if business employs
· Businesses must notify Strata of changes to DA eg employees.
· Councils must cancel the Development Application if they council receives notification from the Body Corporate of Development Applications being cancelled by the B/C.
To this day, Council is informing the public the Development Application the Land and Environment Court declared invalid is valid. The floor has not been reinstated. We are seeking answers.
eloong
February 29, 2012 at 6:41 am
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES/STRATA MANAGERS
As some, if not many, ECs are, or can be, the source of the problems and dissatisfaction in strata complexes, nominees for election to ECs should be required to
provide in writing at least 7 days before the EC election/AGM etc details of:-
1. their name;
2. their capacity (proprietor, resident or non resident proprietor, other);
3. who nominated them and their relationship if any;
4. if seeking re-election:-
4.1 how many years they have served on the EC;
4.2 the number of times EC meetings were held in the preceding 12 months: and
4.3 the number of times they were absent;
5. any qualifications they may have which they consider to be beneficial for an EC;
6. why they seek election to the EC;
7. why they should be selected for the EC;
8. any matters they would address, improve or initiate in the interests of the Owners Corporation;
9. if seeking re-election, any matter(s) or decision(s) they may have personally initiated in the interests of, or for the benefit of, their Owners Corporation;
10. any direct or indirect financial interest in the building, or any potential conflicts of interest; and
11. any other relevant matter in support.
EC members and strata managers who can be shown to have, or have had, conflicts of interest should be removed or barred from their role.
barry reece
February 29, 2012 at 6:45 am
Expenditure, Public Safety, Monopoly,
Government requirements necessitating unexpected capital expenditure from a sinking fund by the body corporate.
Such a requirement e.g. instalation of smoke alarms in common property areas being a recent example, is within the ambit of the Act. But it is submitted that such a change, justified as reform, should provide for in legislation, first, time for the physical work to be done and, secondly, time for the securing of finance for the necessary work, without disruption to the operation of the sinking fund on an unmanageable scale. This is not a clause in the Act.
The second of these effects is an unintended consequence of reform. This technically is a case of sovereign risk. Owner’s cost will generally rise with changing policy enhancing safety. That a sinking fund cannot be devised on the basis of providing for changes in government policy is the basis argument. The remedy is legislation requiring that extra time be allowed for the body corporate to find the finance. For example, time equal to that allowed for physical completion could be allowed. This would reduce for owners the unanticipated burden of financing work, by creating a grace period in which special levies, raised sinking fund fees or borrowing could take place..
As a corollary, in the event of any tribunal hearing, it should be mandatory for an adjudicator to take into account the financial consequences of “reform” on a sinking fund, if an owner alleges that the common property has not been maintained.
Public Safety
Some, but not all, works conducted by a strata body may cause injury and/or damage to a third party. An example known to me is the case of a chipping machine flinging a wood chip approximately 40 m across a road, striking then, at first floor level, a window, and penetrating successively, fly screen, window glass, and curtain. This event occurred when the owner was absent.
If the body corporate has employed a contractor required to be licensed in NSW, then the body corporate should be obliged to disclose all relevant information to the third party.
This not now the case. The effect is to prohibit the third party reporting the licensed contractor to the appropriate licensing authority. Hence suitability and competence of the contactor (or his worker) in terms of health and safety, cannot be examined, after the receipt of a complaint made by the third party.
Lack of information rules out third party action. A claim for damages against the body corporate by means of bringing a civil case is made virtually impossible by lack of information if the body corporate or its agent decline to provide that information. The same holds for injury. The latter is the most important, as contents insurance may cover the damage, subject to any excess in the policy.
Hence the submission is made that a body corporate be required to make public to a third party information as to who was responsible for injury and/or injury, enabling a complaint to be made to a relevant licensing authority.
Monopoly
The current Act is neutral in regard to the issue of the whether managerial fees are set competitively or otherwise.
Can this neutrality continue? Specifically, could and should the Act intervene if it could be shown the pricing of managerial services differed from a competitive outcome. The relevance of this is current choice of owners to strata title tenure may decline in future if owners switch to non-strata tenure forms. This would be disconcerting to the current government policy off increasing urban population densities. Also that would be injurious to housing ownership and rental affordability.
The analytical issue here is whether or not the concentration of ownership of strata title management (STM) firms is rising. To untangle all the issues affecting the cost of providing managerial services could be difficult. How profits arise and accrue to STM is complex, may border on the fringe of legality, but in the end may also reduce fees to a second order of magnitude.
Nevertheless, the background feeling of some is that the take-over of STM firms by others has been occurring. If the prices paid have been too high then the recovery of the excess paid may trigger increasing fees and /or lower service standards for body corporates. For example, how many body corporates can a single employee manage?
Is it too sensational to speak of a degree of market power emerging? The topic of monopoly profit would be the bluntest way of putting this concern. Alternatively we can note fear of the possibility that business men will seek reductions in competition to profit themselves dates from the earliest writers on economics.
To conclude, the review of the Act under way may gain from a study of industry concentration. Establishing what % of the industry is controlled by the top firms, and also the % of overseas ownership, would interest most. This study might extend to an index of service fees over time in order to complement the concentration ratios.
Only with this knowledge might fears on the ownership of strata tile management firms becoming less competitive be able to enter into forging a better Act
Eddie Kabraji
February 29, 2012 at 6:51 am
Strata Laws – One Line Consultation
Shared costs under a Strata Management Statement heavily burdens residential owners in a shared facility where there are two or more lots. Owners are extensively burdened from the time when the Strata Management Statement is registered. Our experience relates to a large scheme which has a residential building with commercial, retail and car park stratums
In fact, our entire experience from the first Annual General Meeting held by the Owners Corporation has involved on-going problems with shared facility costs and approval processes for the inclusion of another large tower to be constructed by the developer under the current SMS that reflects the problems with many features of strata and planning legislation
These problems require amendments to legislation to stop undue influence by developers in placing a huge financial burden on owners of the residential lot following the commencement of the scheme and to stop developers using residential strata buildings to subsidise their continuing expansion of commercial and retail space.
We have set out our experiences and suggestions for legislative change that will assist strata owners better manage their relationships with developers who continue to influence and affect the direction and operation of Owners Corporations.
What are the main areas of the existing strata and community scheme laws you would like to see changed
1. Coneyancing lawyers have inadequate knowledge of mixed development schemes
Experience has shown that converyancing lawyers fail to disclose to purchasers what their financial obligations are when they purchase apartments in a mixed scheme where there are other commercial buildings, retail shopping centres, car parks, sporting complexes, day care centres, medical centres and the like.
The apartment owners are told that they will need to pay levies for the maintenance of the residential apartments. That is as much as the public know when they buy into a mixed scheme.
It is not what the conveyance lawyers tell these purchasers but what they don’t tell them. Little do these owners know that throughout the life of ownership of these apartments they will be subsidizing developers for the upkeep of other parts of the scheme, as well.
Purchasers are ambiguous about the difference between levies and contributions. This ambiguity must be clearly clarified to the extent that the purchaser fully understands. Contributions are added to Levies to improvise for the wider scheme called the “Shared Facility”.
What governs the Shared Facility is the “Strata Management Statement” which is included in the Sales Deed”. The Strata Management Statement is like a Constitution for the Building which has been written and registered with the knowledge of Legislation where the Purchasers suffer. The Purchaser must know that the developer owns other buildings outside of their Residential Strata Scheme where they will be required to pay “contributions” for the entire Shared Facility. So these purchasers are not just paying for their owns strata scheme, the residential apartments they may have just purchased, but subsidising the developer who built their residential apartments, for all the other stratums the developer owns viz. the commercial buildings, retail shopping centres, car parks, sporting complexes, day care centres, medical centres, whichever other facility that is integrated into the scheme as part of a shared facility.
The Conveyance Lawyers must be able to clearly and concisely explain the powers of the Developer in the wider scheme called the shared facility. The purchaser must be told if the developer has the power to increase the contributions from the residential owners to the extent of what the developer needs are and the owners have no say whatsoever and the owners have no say in the contributions the developer levies. Inadvertently the purchaser may be paying for the entire scheme called the Shared Facility in which the purchaser has no standing or rights for the life of the investment in their greatest asset.
What needs to happen in legislation is purchasers must be well informed or legislation must change to contain the developer which is recommended.
If the latter were not to happen there must be detailed education for the purchaser to familiarize themselves about that particular scheme. How will this happen?
· Before any Deposit is taken from the Purchaser by the Real Estate Agents, the Agents must educate Purchasers about the burden they are likely to face when they buy into a Shared Facility
· The Conveyance Lawyer must explain the Requisition on Title to the Purchaser
· Their must be a break down of levies and contributions in such Requisition of Titles and in s109 certificates
· The Vendors Lawyers should be barred from practicing Law if they conceal the truth
· The Purchasers Lawyer must demonstrate a “duty of care” to its client. They must obtain a certificate from the Council to state that there a prospective development being considered by the Council or any other assessment body and what impact on amenities such future developments will have.
· Council staff should face severe penalties and investigated by ICAC if they conceal facts about impending development.
· There should be Government sponsored TV advertising, every quarter, where owners can learn about such unconscionable schemes
· There must be training offered by Agents, Coneyancing Lawyers and Local Government to Purchasers in Strata Schemes where there is a Shared Facility
2. Developers must not commit future owners to long-term contracts
Developers are presently able to enter into contracts for the provision of services, such as building management and concierge services, cleaning and security, before an owners corporation is properly constituted.
Future strata owners are locked into agreements they were unable to review, negotiate, amend, approve or reject. These agreements can commit strata owners to paying above market rates for services, bind them to long fixed terms and restrict their rights to approve transfer of agreements or subcontracting. Sometimes these agreements are made with an entity associated with the developer and/or the developer receives payments for arranging them. (We are presently involved in proceedings in relation to agreements entered into by the developer for precisely these reasons.)
The current legislation does not address adequately this problem. Existing prohibitions on developers entering into contracts with third parties during the initial period simply do not go far enough. The NSW Supreme Court has decided that the current laws do not mean the agreement itself is illegal and the third party service provider cannot be paid: merely that the developer has to indemnify the strata owners if they over paying or otherwise detrimentally affected. The legislation does not stop dishonest third parties from suing if the strata owners end their agreements when they discover the relationship with the developer and the fact the agreement provides for payments that are above market value.
The legislation should prohibit developers from entering into any long term agreements, and provide that full disclosure of any relationship should be mandatory before strata owners ratify any agreement. Failure to disclose relevant facts or the discovery of any benefits to the developer should result in the agreement being void ab initio, disentitling the contractor from suing and allowing for damages claims by strata owners. These remedies should be available alongside the existing rights in section 113 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996.
3. Developers restricting owners’ voting rights and appropriating funds under Strata Management Statements
We have also been involved in an ongoing and expensive dispute regarding the shared facility costs under the SMS and their allocation between the separate components of the Shared Facility – the residential, commercial, retail and car park strata. The developer drafted and registered the SMS without any input from the strata owners. But the residential strata owners are thereafter bound by the voting and funding provisions of the SMS.
In our scheme within this Shared Facility, the SMS provides for the affairs to be controlled by a Building Management Committee (BMC), with each of the four members entitled to one vote on the BMC. The residential strata vote is controlled by the strata owners and the other three votes are controlled by the developer. In other words, the strata owners are outvoted 3-1 on any and every issue in dispute with the developer at the BMC.
The absurdity of this arrangement is best illustrated by the car park stratum, which has no residents or other parties to represent, has significantly lower overheads and yet has the same voting rights as the residential stratum which represents 241 lots (including families, individual residents and investors). In addition to the problem that this arrangement is imposed upon strata owners before the owners corporation even comes into existence, the SMS and the provisions about shared facility costs cannot be changed without the agreement of all BMC members – which will never occur given the developer’s ability to outvote the strata owners on any matter which does not benefit the developer.
This causes significant unfairness and hardship as the residential strata owners are subsidising up to 65% of the developer operating, repair, maintenance and replacement costs in other parts of the building and even more.
The expenses allocation to the Residential Owners have failed to comply with the distribution schedules in the Strata Management Statement (SMS)
The developer has asserted, and continues to assert that it is entitled to calculate shared costs on the basis of floor space, rather than proportionate use. Additionally, the developer argues that there is no capacity under any Act, Regulation or in the SMS to review prior shared facility costs and/or for the strata owners to be compensated if there was over-payment on their part. The developer has continued to assert, in the face of notices of dispute, meetings and requests for a review of the shared facilities and shared facility costs, that it is not required to do anything about prior costs and that there is nothing the Owners can do about shared costs, either past, present or future, as the legislation and the SMS contain no remedy. This is an untenable situation.
Whilst we disagree with the developer as to there being no remedy, we have to go outside the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 and argue that the Contracts Review Act applies to an SMS. The NSW Supreme Court has made some decisions about SMS but, to date, has refused to give any real remedies under this legislation.
So strata owners are stuck, particularly where they have no voting power with only 1 of 4 votes on the BMC and can do nothing to change the shared facility costs.
Additionally, the developer has not provided proper budgets for the BMC or justified any increase in BMC levies for the last 6 years. Accounts have not been kept and the developer continues to increase the strata owners share of and level of BMC levies. (The developer is now in litigation with the strata owners over other matters and we believe the increases in BMC levies are an attempt by the developer to drain the strata owners of funds so that they cannot litigate properly).
So, there is no protection against – oppression of the minority in BMCs or in SMS matter, or undue influence by developers or majority owners in the BMC, or unfair contract terms in the SMA.
Additionally the strata legislation does not gives the Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal jurisdiction to deal with disputes about the BMC, the SMS or shared facilities and shared facility costs.
Adjudication is the only method allowed under the Strata Management Statement.(SMS). The adjudicators’ decision is final. So, while expensive Supreme Court proceedings against developers with deep pockets are not an option available at the moment to residential lot owners, legislators need to seriously consider this change in legislation and now.
Regulations allowing owners to engage in proceedings must be retrospective and limitations must apply from the time the owners caught of sight of unfair and unjust practices adopted by Developers, their Building Managers, their Strata Managers and the Builders
Specific prohibitions need to be contained in the legislation, and strata owners need a right to ratify any SMS and a right to have their views expressed and considered about what should be in the SMS.
Further, there needs to be prohibitions on the developer controlling the financial interests of residential strata owners within the legislation. In our case, the developer controls all the insurance policies for the building and for protection for office holders of the owners corporation which is outside its commercial interest and is being used to thwart office holders making complaints about developer conduct. To date, the developer has caused the insurer to increase premiums for office holders to the point where they are prohibitive, leaving office holders open to being sued by the developer and having to pay their own legal costs and for any verdict against them. Office bearers insurance should be compulsory and should not be under the control of the developer.
4. Changes to relevant legislation
The areas which require attention and legislative change are as follows.
(a) Legislative direction as to the standards that are required for budgets and their preparation in strata buildings and in BMCs.
(b) There needs to be a remedy if there is a refusal to comply with standards and other requirements. Apart from offences being committed, the developer should be prohibited from collecting levies from residential strata unless there is compliance with proper accounting standards.
(c) There needs to be a legislative prohibition against oppression of the minority, undue influence, unconscionable conduct and misuse of power by the developer and other majority strata owner groups.
(d) There needs to be a statutory formula for shared costs to prohibit residential strata subsidising commercial and retail stratum lots.
(e) There needs to be a legislative prohibition on developers influencing the insurance decisions of the residential strata owners and office bearers insurance should be compulsory and affordable.
(f) There needs to be legislative prohibitions for misuse of funds should developers fail to prepare appropriate budgets and reports and continue to collect levies without any justification. This should include offences, fines and other penalties which stop a developer from continuing to draw levies from the residential stratum whilst their practices are in contravention of the legislation.
(g) There needs to be legislation preventing developers from exercising their influence in the running of residential buildings beyond the First AGM. All developer proxy power must cease immediately.
Given the substantial period of time involved in changing legislation, we would be grateful if the Minister could give consideration to making some of the above changes, where possible, by regulation.
5. The Development dispute
There are disputes on foot where the developer wants to include a further multi-million dollar commercial and retail development into the BMC and under the provisions of the SMS.
The residential owners have tried to stop this development. A number of the residents bought off the plan and were induced to do so by advertising (of a very persuasive nature) from the developer regarding the maintenance of iconic views of Sydney Harbour, including the Harbour Bridge and Opera House. The prices paid for individual units by owners reflected access to these views. A certain flank of the building paid higher prices that other aspects of the building for reasons of the views
However, since selling the apartments, the developer has had the further adjoining development approved by the Labor Government under the former Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,, including a hotel which is to be joined by a tunnel from Walker Street North Sydney, the Hotel to be built later as part of a “Staged Development”. None of this was disclosed to any purchaser and, more importantly, the strata owners had no right of participation in the planning consent process as, even though they were the owner of lands affected by the development, and were to be joined in a further SMS which also requires them to meet over 27% of the total costs of shared services of strata owned by the developer, there was no legislative directive allowing the strata owners any real say whatsoever in the process.
The blocking of any of the iconic views will affect the average residential owner’s asset base by about $200,000 if not more. And including two new large developments into the BMC with the strata owners will increase the residential owners levies by hundreds of thousands every year. The developer is arguing that the residential owners who bought into the strata have no right to withhold consent from the developer including these new developments into the BMC and the Strata Management Statement (SMS).
The Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 does not provide any specific remedy or give the strata owners any power to object to new developments being added to the BMC and the SMS. The legislation gives the developer wide powers over the contents of the SMS but few (if any) rights to strata owners over changes. This is a lacuna in the legislation allowing developers to abuse their self created position to have strata owners subsidise their commercial and retail costs.
At this stage, the developer has asked residential strata owners to consent to the addition of the new buildings to the BMC and the SMS, however, we are left with a very limited range of rights in the SMS which the developer drafted to protect itself to argue that we have a right of refusal.
This situation should not have arisen. Residential strata owners should be protected by the various Acts from developers introducing new costs and new charges and strata owners should have a right to refuse changes. The methodology for calculating who is responsible for costs should not be in the hands of a developer who has 3 of the 4 votes at BMC meetings and who will always vote in its own interests.
The Minister needs to exercise power to make fundamental changes to the strata laws to protect strata owners from the oppressive conduct of developers who set up the entire system of shared costs and voting rights to benefit themselves, and which result in strata owners subsidising them and having no capacity to refuse to pay or to have costs reviewed.
Our experience should not be repeated. And. we should not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars running Supreme Court proceedings when this government could provide specific statutory remedies over which the Consumer Trader & Tennancy Tribunal has jurisdiction, so access to justice is not denied by prohibitive costs.
Q1. What are the main areas of the existing strata and community schemes laws you would like to see changed?
Suggestions are raised in this submission which relates to:
a) Legislation must consider the contractual rights of residential owners, their property rights and their rights in Equity
b) Training should be introduced and Buyers must be well informed when they into mixed strata schemes with retail, commercial, parking and other lots of the like in a shared facility context
c) Owners need to have a greater stake in the operation and management of large strata schemes within a shared facility
d) The Developer must advise Owners of their desire to further develop the site, when they sell apartments off the plan and at the First Annual Genera l Meeting of the Owners Corporation
e) There must be no false advertising.
f) Independent of the Stock of Apartments which remain unsold and which the Developer Retains, the Developer’s Voting Rights within the Owners Corporation must be no more than 20% at the First Annual General Meeting and abolished after the first year.
g) The Power for an Owners Corporation should not be limited to the operations and management of Common Property. The Act needs to be modified so that the Owners Corporation can protect the rights of individual owners against developers and their future development schemes
h) Developers Schemes for maintenance of the Shared Facility should not be subsidized by Owners
i) The Power of the Owners Corporation must be directly proportional to the Financial Contributions they make to the Shared Facility where multiple Lots are owned by Developers
j) If allocations within a Strata Management Statement are made based on Floor Space Area then so must the Voting Rights of the Owners Corporation
k) The Strata Management Statement should be open to contestability through Dispute Resolution in the CTTT, the Supreme Courts, the Court of Appeals and in the High Court. The Owners rights must not be thwarted by Developers.
l) Like Developer Donations to Political Parties, Developer Contributions must be banned.
Q2. Can you see any future changes that need to be addressed in legislation? The simple answer is yes.
a) Changes in Legislation are required to the Real Property Act, Conveyance Act, the Freehold Development Act 1973 and the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 and regulations 2007 and 2010 of the Strata Schemes respectively
b) The Act needs to consider Public, Community and above all the interest of the affected parties, particularly when residential buildings are included within Mixed Use Strata Schemes or Shared Facilities
c) Legislation needs to consider all “negative covenants” so any council engaged in the writing of past Deeds between parties in commercial interest, must ensure that the negative covenants are registered on title by the office of the Department of Lands.
d) The Councils must not be able to sell the same floor space over and over again for financial interest allowing Councils to Dip in the proceeds multiple times
e) Developers Deposit Plans for Shared Facilities must include plans for the sub-division of lots, clearly identifying the stages of development to include bulk, mass scale and size of the development
f) The Environmental Planning Act, the LEP and the DCP should not be amended to increase the Bulk Height, Scale and Mass of those Lots to allow Developers to benefit from the subsequent sale of the Lots by which they burden residential lot owners.
g) Past Deeds or Agreements with Negative Covenants on the sale and transfer of Land and Strata Development Contracts must be submitted to the Land Titles Office for all staged development of Shared Facilities, whether current buildings exist on those adjacent lots or not.
h) Initial Sub-Division Plans should be submitted to the Land Titles Office before the commencement of Residential Development and finalized when the building is complete
i) Voting on the acceptance of the Strata Management Statement must occur at the First Annual General Meeting of Owners
j) The legislation should prohibit developers from entering into any long term agreements with the Building Managers of the both the Strata and the Shared Facilities, and that the provision of full disclosure of any relationship should be mandatory before residential strata owners ratify any agreement. These remedies should be available alongside the existing rights in section 113 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996
k) Legislative direction as to the standards that are required for budgets and their preparation in strata buildings and in BMCs.
l) There needs to be a remedy if there is a refusal to comply with standards and other requirements. Apart from offences being committed, the developer should be prohibited from collecting levies from residential strata unless there is compliance with proper accounting standards.
m) There needs to be a legislative prohibition against oppression of the minority, undue influence, unconscionable conduct and misuse of power by the developer and other majority strata owner groups.
n) There needs to be a statutory formula for shared costs to prohibit residential strata subsidising commercial and retail stratum lots.
o) There needs to be a legislative prohibition on developers influencing the insurance decisions of the residential strata owners and office bearers insurance should be compulsory and affordable.
p) There needs to be legislative prohibitions for misuse of funds should developers fail to prepare appropriate budgets and reports and continue to collect levies without any justification. This should include offences, fines and other penalties which stop a developer from continuing to draw levies from the residential stratum whilst their practices are in contravention of the legislation.
q) There needs to be legislation preventing developers from exercising their influence in the running of residential buildings beyond the First AGM. All developer proxy power must cease immediately.
r) The Common Property of a Strata Scheme has a net value in the price which is reciprocal to the net loss incurred by every residential lot owner. When the value of a lot owners residential lots fall so does the value of common property. Wider powers need to be included into S111 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 which should be expanded to include rights of owners corporation beyond the management of Common Property and to include matters with respect to loss of amenity
s) The Voting Powers of Owners Corporation within a Shared Facility Strata should be directly proportional to the amount of the money they contribute to the Shared Facility
t) Where possible the Plant Machinery and Equipment within the separate entities (lots) within a Shared Facility should be separated as far as possible. When New Buildings are integrated into a shared facility by way of inclusion of a new residential building, the Owners are burdened by paying for Plant Machinery and Equipment in Buildings which have adage equipment adjoining the Residential Building for which they have no use and pay the Developer large sums of money to subsidise the running of buildings within the developer owned lots
u) The power to amend By-Laws should be given to the Residential Owners and not the Developer.
How could the management of Strata and Community Schemes be improved
a) We encourage the Government to introduce regulations to protect owners in the near term
b) Legislation must ensure that Developers and Strata Managers do not engage in activity which burdens owners.
c) Legislation must ensure that the Institute of Strata Titles Management is run by an independent body then the Directors of Strata Management Agencies as they are conflicted through their relationships with the Developers, Property Councils and Urban Task Force Groups. They place undue burden on owners of residential lots
d) Legislation must ensure that Lawyers make a full disclosure as per their obligations under a statute when dealing with owners corporations that they are not associated with Developers, Strata Managers and the Building Managers
e) Legislation must ensure that Building Managers make a full disclosure as per their obligations under a statute when dealing with owners corporations that they are not associated with Developers and their Strata Managers
f) Powers of Developers within a Scheme should bar them from allowing them to delegate authority to their Strata Managers from the time of the inaugural meeting to use Common Seals on any application, certificate or document being submitted to the Land Titles Office, the Council
Are there any changes needed to the way disputes in strata and communities are resolved
Retrospective Compensation should be allowed by Law where there has been coercive activity, misrepresentation, undue influence to the extent that financial records have not been provided to the residential owners and when it is determined that the owners have been excessively paying contributions for the past years.
The simple answer is that the CTTT must be given major powers where a Tribunal can appreciate all the vast financial assessments provided by Forensic Experts, the technical reports provided by Quantity Surveyors and Services Experts, Planning Experts, Structural and other Engineers and Consultants Reports, Reports from Valuers, Social Impacts Reports, submissions made by Lawyers and Legal Counsels, where such expert advice and reports can be clearly understood to reach a decision. The decision of the Tribunal should be like any minor court. Owners should have the right to take the matter to a Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the High Court. Developers should not burden owners by limiting their rights to the decisions brought down by adjudicators and tribunals where they say in the SMS that the adjudicator’s decision is final. This si a mandatory change request and should be considered retrospectively.
Where this matter is too complex for the Tribunal, the Owners should be able to exercise their rights to take these matters to a Supreme Court.
elonkeen
February 29, 2012 at 6:55 am
Open forum, strata and community association legislation
1. Our problems with the tribunal are well documented over the last seven years since [edited by moderator] an owner of a one bedroom unit, set out to deliberately sabotage the contractual rights of this company in an attempt to cause malicious financial hardship by removal of capital gains by-laws entitlements for income in the community management statement and leaving this company liable for all of the obligations with no compensating income.
2. As the attached letters indicate we were severely prejudiced by incompetent determinations by [edited by moderator]causing the community association (CMS) to be compulsory managed from the 14.01.2008.
3. On 07.01.2008 the same applicant [edited by moderator]) submitted an application to have by-laws 1.8 and 38 of the CMS revoked by manipulating the compulsory appointment of Strata Professionals to act for the community association notwithstanding they were not privy to the contractual agreements in 1998 that caused the community title in conjunction with the strata title to be registered in June 2000.
4. [edited by moderator] was not a party or privy to the contractual arrangements as he did not purchase a unit until early 2003 and immediately set about finding a way to destroy this company’s rights and interests with no other reason but extreme malice which was facilitated by [edited by moderator] who indulged his opinions without any basis as to fact.
5. [edited by moderator] revoked the by-laws without any consideration of the evidence relating to the CMS which was primarily caused by allowing [edited by moderator]to represent the community association which effectively meant it was undefended and the by-laws were dismissed on face value without any consideration for the contractual arrangements by this company. Worse still, this company was not even nominated as an interested party on the evidence that I provided which was ignored by [edited by moderator].
6. This company was forced to appeal to the District Court by application 12.11.2008 which was eventually heard on 23.02.2010 by [edited by moderator]who set aside the decision by [edited by moderator]ll on 14.10.2008 and ordered a rehearing by the tribunal. The District Court judgement was 41 pages and the judge referred to numerous errors at law before setting aside the determination by [edited by moderator]. It should be noted that the most fundamental error was that [edited by moderator]ignored the evidence from this company of the contractual basis behind the formation of the CMS as well as ignoring the fact that by-law 1.1 of the CMS confirms the status of a retirement village including the fact that the judge declared the CMS was a statutory contract.
7. The rehearing did not occur until June & September 2011 in which [edited by moderator]comprehensively dismissed the original application by [edited by moderator] 07.01.2008. [edited by moderator] upheld the judgement by [edited by moderator]19.03.2010 causing a major contradiction with the determination by [edited by moderator]14.10.2008 which there was no basis to make.
8. In relation to (7) above I made numerous urgent representations to the Minister for Fair Trading for intervention by the chairperson of the tribunal and was repeatedly told that the current procedures could not be changed leaving the rehearing to occur 19 months after the District Court judgement which only served to compound our losses and the stigma caused within the broader community because of the continuing litigation which caused catastrophic falls in the value of existing units in the strata plan causing a knock on effect where further development by this company remains unviable. The fact is that new units sold nine years ago in the strata plan between $200K to $220K have resold in the last year for as little as $151K directly as a result of the incompetent determination by tribunal [edited by moderator]14.10.2008.
9. The effect of all the above has also caused this company to spend more than $60K on legal costs and approximately $360K of representatives of this company’s time apart from an estimated collapse in value of the development land of a minimum of $4M with the direct responsibility attaching to [edited by moderator] and the tribunal causing more financial hardship for recovery. The Minister for Fair Trading has been placed on notice of our potential claim.
10. Immediately after the decision by [edited by moderator]improperly prevailed on Strata Professionals to remove the by-laws revoked by [edited by moderator] notwithstanding they were aware of our appeal filed in November 2008, the effect being to exacerbate damages.
11. In relation to (10) above the removal of the by-laws from the CMS caused units to be sold without paying any capital gain fees to this company causing financial hardship and consequently an extreme fall in market value of strata units compounding the problem by continuing litigation to protect our rights under the CMS. All of these factors created a stigma with prospective purchasers wanting to purchase property in the strata plan which clearly defines it as a retirement village under by-law 1.1 of the CMS. Obviously anyone wanting to retire was not interested an ongoing war and litigation caused by Mr Rannard contrary to the purpose of a retirement village.
12. As a result of the above we have had to reinstate the by-laws, enter into litigation to recover capital gains fees avoided during the time the CMS was unlawfully amended and commence legal action against Mr Rannard, Strata Professionals and the strata plan for damages they caused.
13. In addition to (12) above this company had an obligation to complete the community centre at an estimated cost exceeding $1M prior to further development of 213 units approved on lots exclusively owned by this company. The community centre is almost complete, unfortunately further development of units is now financially unviable as the values are approximately $100K below comparative units in the local area with construction costs about the value of units recently sold in the strata with no allowance for the recovery for the value of land or development profit.
14. In relation to the above this company is now left in a worse position with continuing obligations under the CMS and no opportunity of making any profit by the indulgence of tribunal members [edited by moderator] and to a lesser degree [edited by moderator] who indulged [edited by moderator] applications contrary to fact in December 2008 and early 2009 allowing the compulsory appointment of [edited by moderator] to continue on the basis of false evidence by both [edited by moderator], all members demonstrated utter contempt for this company’s rights and interests under the CMS.
15. In relation to (14) I was personally served with a false AVO by [edited by moderator] in 2008 which was comprehensively dismissed by the Taree Local Court 25.08.2008. The motives by [edited by moderator]was to cause me as much stress as possible and compromise my appearance at the hearing where he had the CTTT organise security for his protection. The member seemed to be influenced by [edited by moderator] false claims to indulge his vexatious application. The additional security demanded by [edited by moderator] had no basis whatsoever causing the tribunal’s costs to escalate and painted him as a victim and myself as bully to gain sympathy from tribunal members.
16. On several occasions subpoenas were served on [edited by moderator]to produce documents that were important evidence in relation to the vexatious application by [edited by moderator]. In every instance [edited by moderator] refused to comply to produce records using pathetic excuses without any reasonable basis to do so. Ultimately several tribunal members admitted the tribunal has never punished anyone for not complying notwithstanding severe penalties apply. The end result was that [edited by moderator]was encouraged to demonstrate utter contempt of his legal obligation of appliance.
17. My observations of the appalling conduct by the CTTT has been caused by the tribunal being a law until itself primarily making decisions without any care or concern as to the facts on the basis that the tribunal conducts hearings with a minimum of formality by disregarding proper rules of evidence that would apply in the District Court and Supreme Court jurisdictions.
In relation to the questions 1 to 4 of your invitation and given the evidence and the circumstances caused by the tribunal we strenuously recommend urgent changes to the status quo under which the tribunal operates as follows. (Your question numbers are indexed at the bottom of each suggestion.)
a) It is clear there needs to be a higher degree of accountability by the tribunal and its members with flexibility to revise complaints that, for whatever reason, become complex and exceed the competence of the tribunal members who are in effect hearing matters that should be referred to a higher jurisdiction – I instance the fact on 15.05.2008 I made submissions to Member Balding that Mr Rannard’s application should be referred to the Supreme Court in which proper rules of evidence would have applied, causing Mr Rannard be liable for security of costs, if [edited by moderator] had listened to what I said [edited by moderator] application would have failed with no recourse as to a rehearing by the tribunal, minimising the enormous financial damage caused to this company and unwarranted costs of the neverending hearings by the tribunal. (Questions 1, 2, 3)
b) In support of (a) above there should be changes to the Act where someone like [edited by moderator]cannot rely on sections 80 & 81 of the CMLA to take out an application to change by-laws in a community association without it being incumbent upon the applicant to be aware of the all of the facts creating the CMS which is exactly what occurred – a severe penalty should apply to anyone making a vexatious application without any care or concern of the facts on the basis it is incumbent on the applicant to be fully aware of the facts, which were public record, and obviously did not apply to the application of [edited by moderator]. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
c) [edited by moderator] applications werre nothing more than an opportunist manipulation the Act by paying a pensioner concessional fee causing catastrophic costs to this company and the tribunal on the basis that he had everything to gain and little to lose ultimately leaving this company with an enormous problem of recovering costs apart from the destruction of the financial viability of completing further development of 213 units under the current DA consent – [edited by moderator] application also caused huge unwarranted costs to the tribunal primarily because he ignored the public records and contractual agreements notwithstanding it was incumbent on him to be certain of the facts as opposed to his self serving, incorrect statements. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
d) In relation to (a) to (c) above there needs to be a clear distinction in the CLMA to avoid a repetition of the absolute abuse of the Act by anyone with severe penalties applying for abuse in the future. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
e) In relation to (a) to (d) above we accept the tribunal has a role to protect applicants in the community however it is obvious there needs to be a limit of the jurisdiction of the tribunal by excluding itself from matters that are or become legally complex with a facility so that the tribunal can terminate its involvement with a recommendation that the parties are referred to a higher jurisdiction with appropriate levels of expertise and protection from vexatious applications as clearly is the case involving [edited by moderator] The facts are we made an application to [edited by moderator] on 15.05.2008 and in her written determination she dismissed the application to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court which was the appropriate jurisdiction at that time. The tribunal is accountable for the failure of [edited by moderator] to mitigate the enormous consequences by her refusal to act competently which is precisely why the CMLA needs to be changed urgently. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
f) In relation to (e) above there needs be a stricter and more effective disincentive for anyone making a vexatious application with appropriate financial penalties to protect any respondent who is affected by such applications, it should be accepted that an applicant may have minimal assets and have little to lose by making an application that can cause huge costs and financial ruin to a respondent and this is an argument why the tribunal should refer the applicant to a different jurisdiction such as the District or Supreme Court by a preliminary review either at the outset or during the process of the application when the complexity of the application becomes such that it is beyond the normal competence of the tribunal members to resolve. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
g) Whilst we accept tribunal members require a degree of independence there must be checks and balances put into place within the Act to ensure the tribunal and its members are properly accountable and held liable for gross negligence by financial and disciplinary penalties as occurred with members Bordon, Paull and Balding otherwise the problems I have experienced will never end. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
h) Referring to item (16) above the tribunal needs to change the act in relation to the compliance of subpoenas with severe financial penalties applying against anyone who does not reasonably comply to overcome the perception the tribunal is, in effect, a toothless tiger. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
i) The tribunal members consistently unreasonably indulged [edited by moderator] applications without any security for costs by the respondents, contrary to what would apply in a higher jurisdiction encouraging what proved to be a consistency of wildly speculative, vexatious / ill conceived applications that required enormous expense and time to refute without any penalty against the applicant. The Acts need to be changed to financially penalise any applicant who makes seriously / maliciously false applications. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
j) Stricter compliance needs to be enforced by the tribunal in relation to underperforming / dysfunctional management of strata and community associations as the instances we have referred to were encouraged by [edited by moderator] who acted on behalf of both associations by their unreasonable / biased indulgence towards [edited by moderator] by their utter contempt of the rights and obligations of this company as the majority lot owner in the community association and a lot in the strata plan. If appropriate accountability was in place the enormous financial damage to this company would have been mitigated. Severe financial penalties and loss of licence needs to be imposed as a disincentive for this situation to occur again. (Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)
Maureen Carr
February 29, 2012 at 6:55 am
Strata schemes management
# All EC members should disclose in the agenda of the AGM all monies; gifts; work contracts etc received from the OC throughout the year. I believe that Committee members of Clubs are made to disclose this. I have never seen any indication of this ever in strata schemes. Everything is hidden under, eg electrical repairs; plumbing; doors; etc.
# In one instance recently an EC members was given the contract worth $144000 to replace doors and locks on 90 Common property doors. This was done at an EGM but it was not stated that the person was a member of the EC and the owners were not given details of any insurance (if any) held by the contractor. A licensed locksmith was not used either.
# In the same ST scheme, another EC member was given priority to do all repairs on common property. He has license as a tiler, wall and floor but nothing else. He was able to contract out the work but his name never appeared on financial statements.
# All cheques paid out from OC funds should have identification as to whom the cheque was paid to and in what unit or area.
I think that there should be the highest possible investigation into Executive committee and strata manager who do nothing to protect the interests of all owners but allow corrupt behaviour and thereby cement their contract with no fear of the EC seeking to replace them.
Thanks you for holding this investigation and I hope that real improvements are made to help weed out the rot.It might be a good idea also to limit EC members to those who have been an owner for at least 12 months. In the case above, 3 of the present 5 EC members south to be on the EC “five minutes” after becoming owners. They succeeded and gave themselves preferential treatment. Complain, as I did, and you do not get repairs done to common property inside your unit; your tenants are harassed and leave, etc, etc.