Dear Sir,
Please see below comments.
Feedback on issues raised in the Discussion Paper
1. There are currently five separate Acts and five associated Regulations regulating
strata and community schemes. Do you believe that the laws should be simplified?
Given the different types of schemes in NSW, should the legislation be more or less
prescriptive?
I generally feel the current Acts and Regulations are adequate and I don’t believe the laws should be
“dumbed down”.
2. Do you think that the way schemes are run can be improved by more education and
training? Should these initiatives be voluntary or mandatory?
In short, yes. Most strata managers are members of Strata Community Australia who do provide
good ongoing training to ensure members are up to date with current legislation and industry
trends.
With the changes from licensing of strata managers to accreditation from organisations such as SCA I
think that will be an improvement. I personally are also a member
of a leading accounting institute for more than 20 years (an industry also governed by accreditation)
and can see the benefits to professionalism this change to strata management will bring.
Education of strata managers I think this is best left to the private sector and government should not
be involved.
3. How could more owners be encouraged to participate in the running of their
scheme? For example, do you support a system of postal voting or compulsory
voting being introduced?
No, I would not support this. As a manager of many schemes, a lot of lot owners choose not to be
involved and appoint
a strata manager such as myself to look after their property in a professional and efficient manner.
They often find attendance at meetings
unnecessary, as you will note with most shareholders in public companies. A lot of owners are also
happy with the
the decisions of the small group of owners who do wish to be involved and a professional strata
manager and if they didn’t
like the decisions that were being made, would attend meetings.
4. For some schemes, there will be a point where it is better to terminate a scheme
rather than arrange significant and expensive repairs. What process should be in
place to terminate a scheme? How many owners would need to agree for a
termination to be approved?
There is a lot of media hype about this this issue but in short I have seen a case where only one
owner held out
from selling to a developer when the building appeared unrepairable. I was asked to take the
property on by an existing client but
declined as the property was in such poor condition that I felt unsafe whilst on the premises and did
not believe it could be repaired.
In this case and cases like it an overwhelming majority of owners should be able to terminate the
scheme without having to go the
supreme court, the cost of which is beyond most peoples means. 80% of U/E would be reasonable in
my view to terminate but perhaps
there could be some set guidelines to follow for this.
5. Do you believe that the definition and responsibilities relating to common property
should be clarified? If so, how?
I think this is currently clear enough however a problem is that some strata owners do not
understand what it is they are buying
and why/where a strata title is different to other forms of title. Perhaps an information guide like the
OFT Strata Living guide should form part of a sale contract.
6. An owner wanting to renovate his or her own lot can sometimes be faced with
significant red tape in getting permission from the owners corporation. Should this
process be simplified? If so, how?
Bathroom, kitchen and general renovations should not require any approval, only notification to the
owners corporation provided they are carried out in accordance with the BCA
and perhaps some form of a certificate of compliance should be provide upon completion,
particularly for bathrooms where waterproofing is an issue.
The Act should also stipulate who is responsible for renovation work once carried out such as
bathrooms.
Additions or structural changes such as removal of structural walls should still be as currently
required by way of a by-law.
7. Currently, it is compulsory for all schemes to have two accounts, an administrative
fund and a sinking fund. Should this still be the case? If so, should the law set how
much money should go into the sinking fund?
This should remain as it is however Schemes should be able to raise a low sinking fund (particularly
small schemes) on the pretence that if any major work is required they can raise a special levy.
8. Do you have any views on how the process of preventing and/or handling disputes
in schemes could be improved?
I’m not sure how you can improve this but the current process of notice to comply, mediation and
seeking an order is simply too long.
Often once the process gets to the order stage the offender moves out and if the same problem
arises with the next resident the process has to start all over again.
9. Should schemes be given greater powers to enforce their own by-laws? If so, what
steps could be introduced to prevent this power from being abused?
Yes, particularly with respect to parking and noise.
Parking: - Owners Corps should be able to have illegally parked vehicles removed and impounded or
an easy enforceable fine system
applied without having to trawl through the current mediation/CTTT system. The problem of some
residents filling up the visitor parking spaces
because they use their garage for storage or have too many cars is a huge issue in some buildings
and causes much unnecessary aggravation and distress,
whilst in others buildings it is not much of an issue. Perhaps some form of standard Special
Resolution could be required for this.
Noise: The same with noise. When there is disturbing noise from an inconsiderate residents (i.e.
excessively loud voices, TV, radios
or hard flooring Etc.) it is too difficult under the current system to get some reasonable relief to a
problem.
I have had a few complaints, only in recent years, about noise from children as more and more
families are now living in strata.
This has proved a very difficult issue to broach and has at times turned into a very un-pleasant
situation for all parties involved.
10. Are there any other issues you wish to raise?
Smoking:
I occasionally get complaints from non-smokers about others smoking on their balcony and the
smoke drifting over to their unit, which like BBQ smoke is impossible to prevent.
The complaints have increased in recent years. This pops up in the media from time to time and
politicians run a mile from it as the issue seems to be more toxic to them than the smoke.
As a professional manager, I would really like some clarity to this issue from government, not some
argy bargy consultation nonsense.
I don’t smoke and other people smoking has never bothered me but my view is that government
should not be involved in what people do within their own lot, however to a lot of lot owners
this pretty big issue and public attitudes to smoking are changing.
The government needs to be clear on this issue. Either people can smoke within their own lot or
they can’t.
(out if interest I do not recall receiving a complaint about BBQ smoke in many years)
Proxies:
There should be no change to owners being able to hold an unlimited number of proxies. In schemes
above 40 lots a quorum would almost never be reached unless a number of owners provide a proxy.
It is the lot owners decision to provide a proxy. I do not subscribe to the attitude of a vocal minority
that owners give proxies out without due consideration and if one owners is
able to garner more proxies than another with an opposing view, that owner is demonstrating their
democratic right to vote in a way they see fit.
Need to hold the AGM:
A building should be able to hold their AGM whenever they chose or not at all if the elected EC feels
there is no point. Perhaps a special resolution could be made that the AGM is held at the discretion
of the EC with 2 weeks’ notice or at least every three years. Perhaps this could just apply to buildings
under say 30 lots.
Regards,