Carpet inside an apartment in a strata building is common property.  So too is paint on the walls and ceiling inside an apartment.  Surely that can’t be right!  But according to two Supreme Court Judges, it is.

Introduction

There are some truths that the strata industry has held to be self-evident for many years.  For example, in the strata industry, it has long been held that carpet inside an apartment in a strata building forms part of the lot and is not common property and that the same can be said for paint on the walls and ceiling inside an apartment.

But sometimes in strata living (as in life) not everything is as it seems.  A recent Supreme Court case makes that clear.

Carpet

In 2021, the owners corporation of a townhouse complex in Tweed Heads South sued the builder of the complex in the Supreme Court for damages arising out of construction defects.  The case was heard by the Supreme Court in May 2024 and on 7 June 2024 the Court published its judgment.

During the course of its judgment, the Supreme Court had to consider whether or not the owners corporation was entitled to recover damages from the builder for consequential damage to carpets inside the townhouses that was caused by defects in the common property that had allowed water to leak into and cause damage to those townhouses including the carpets in them. The builder argued that the carpet inside the townhouses was lot property as a result of which the owners corporation could not claim compensation for the damage to the carpet.

The Supreme Court disagreed.  The Court held that the carpet was installed inside the townhouses before the strata plan was registered and, relying on the Seiwa case, held that the lower horizontal boundary of each townhouse was the upper surface of its floor, namely the carpet.  For these reasons, the Court concluded that the carpet in each townhouse was common property meaning the owners corporation could claim damages for the cost to remove all carpet and underlay and supply and install new carpet to match existing carpet as closely as possible: see The Owners – Strata Plan No. 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687.

Cosmetic Work

The conclusion that carpet inside a strata lot is common property will not sit comfortably with many within the strata industry.  That begs the question: did the Supreme Court get it right?

There is an indication in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 that it did.  Section 109 of that Act allows an owner of a lot in a strata building to carry out cosmetic work to common property in connection with the owner’s lot without the approval of the owners corporation.  Section 109 provides some examples of cosmetic work including laying carpet.  This indicates that the legislature considered that carpet in a lot forms part of the common property.

Again, this conclusion will still not sit well with many in the strata industry.  So is there any other support for it?

Paint

In 2010, the Supreme Court had to consider a claim by lot owners for damages to cover (among other things) the cost to repair water damage to ceilings and peeling paint work on ceilings in their lot.  The Court concluded that the ceilings and the paint on them were not within the cubic space of the lot and therefore formed part of the common property: see Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & Ors [2010] NSWSC 1507.

Again, section 109 of the Act provides support for the conclusion that paint inside a strata lot forms part of the common property.  This is because section 109 says that painting a strata lot is cosmetic work to common property in connection with the lot.

Common Property Memorandum

There is further support for these conclusions in the common property memorandum.  Section 107 of the Act permits an owners corporation to make a by-law to adopt a common property memorandum.  The common property memorandum specifies whether an owner or the owners corporation is responsible for the maintenance and repair of certain common property.

The common property memorandum that has been prescribed under the strata regulations covers paintwork inside a lot including on a ceiling and internal carpeting.  Whilst the common property memorandum allocates responsibility for the maintenance and repair of that paintwork and carpeting to owners, the inclusion of those items in the memorandum lends support to the conclusion that they form part of the common property, as strange as that might seem.

Conclusion

The conclusions reached by the Supreme Court will be surprising to many and turn longstanding thinking in the strata industry about some basic concepts on its head.  Those conclusions are not entirely free from doubt and there is at least one case which goes the other way.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court decisions should give everyone in the strata industry pause for thought.

/*! elementor - v3.18.0 - 20-12-2023 */
.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Introduction

It is an unfortunate reality that many strata apartment buildings contain defects.  Many of those defects are widespread or systemic defects that affect most or all of the lots.  But how far does an owners corporation have to go to prove the existence of systemic defects?  Does the owners corporation have to organise for its experts to inspect each and every lot to prove that those systemic defects exist in each lot?  A recent Supreme Court case provides the answer to that question.

The Case

There is a strata complex containing 45 townhouses in Tweek Heads South.  The complex was built in about 2018 and 2019.  There are defects in the complex.

In 2021, the owners corporation of the complex sued the builder for damages to (among other things) cover the cost to rectify defects throughout the complex.  In the case, the owners corporation claimed that several defects were systemic and present in numerous townhouses.  One of those defects related to waterproofing defects at the outer edge of balconies above garage doors of many townhouses.

The parties’ experts agreed that the beam which spans the outer edge of the balconies on two of the townhouses suffered moisture damage due to the same waterproofing defect on the balconies of those townhouses.  However, the owners corporation’s expert did not inspect any of the other townhouses or carry out any investigations to prove that those defects existed in them.  The builder denied that those same defects existed in the other townhouses and claimed that the owners corporation had not proved its case in that regard.

Proving the Existence of Systemic Defects

The Court agreed with the builder and concluded that the owners corporation had not proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the waterproofing defects and moisture damage to the beams on the outer edge of the balconies existed in any of the other townhouses.  In other words, the Court concluded that the owners corporation had not proven that those defects were systemic.

The Court relied heavily on an earlier decision in The Owners – Strata Plan No. 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612.  In that case, the owners corporation of a block of 14 units argued that no water stops had been installed by the builder in the bathrooms of all 14 units.  The owners corporation’s expert evidence only proved that there were no water stops in the bathrooms of three units.  But the owners corporation claimed that the lack of water stops was a systemic defect present in all of the bathrooms.

The Court held that it could not be inferred from the evidence that established that there were no water stops in three bathrooms that waterproofing work was incorrectly performed in other units and observed that the fact that the waterproofing contractor defectively performed work in a small number of units did not warrant a conclusion that it did so everywhere else.  Importantly, the Court concluded that the burden of proof lay on the owners corporation and that it had chosen to carry out limited destructive testing in three bathrooms only when there was no reason why it could not had done so in all of the units.

In the case involving the townhouse complex in Tweed Head South, the Supreme Court followed the reasoning in Kell & Rigby and concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to support the inference that the balcony waterproofing defect in two townhouses provided a basis for finding that the same defect existed in all 26 townhouses which have front first floor balconies.

Importantly, the Court held that it could not rely on the opinion of the owners corporation’s expert that the defect was systemic due to similar construction details being present in all townhouses because it was not known whether the waterproofing defects that had been identified in two of the townhouses were caused by faulty design or shoddy workmanship.  For all of these reasons, the Court rejected the owners corporation’s claim that the defect on the outer edge of the balconies was a systemic one that affected all such balconies and instead only accepted that the defect existed in two of the balconies that had actually been inspected and tested by the owners corporation’s experts.

Conclusion

The case provides a salutary lesson for owners corporations who wish to pursue a claim against a builder, developer or subcontractor for systemic defects.  Typically, the owners corporation will need to go the extra mile and pay its expert to inspect more than just a handful of lots to ensure that adequate testing and investigations are undertaken to enable the expert to form an opinion that will allow the owners corporation to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defect in question is widespread and systemic.  In some cases, this will require the expert to inspect and undertake testing and investigations in all of the lots, which in a large strata building, can be expensive.  But that is the unfortunate price an owners corporation must sometimes pay in order to succeed in a claim with respect to systemic defects.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan 99960 v SPS Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 687

/*! elementor - v3.18.0 - 20-12-2023 */
.elementor-widget-image{text-align:center}.elementor-widget-image a{display:inline-block}.elementor-widget-image a img[src$=".svg"]{width:48px}.elementor-widget-image img{vertical-align:middle;display:inline-block}

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Starting 1 July 2024, NSW Fair Trading will introduce updated regulations for strata, real estate and stock & station agents.

The key changes to these regulations will include:

Supervision Guidelines

These changes outline stricter requirements for how agencies:

• Oversee their operations
• Ensure legal compliance
• Ensure ethical conduct
• Prevent fraud

Continuing Professional Development (CPD)

Agents will also need to complete annual CPD training covering four mandatory topics specific to their license type. The mandatory topics for strata are:

Strata Managing Agents

• Strata law reforms 2023-24
• Introduction to work health and safety obligations in strata management
• New Supervision Guidelines for strata managing agencies
• Best practice management of building defects, maintenance and repair

The aim of these changes is to improve service quality, set higher standards and expectations to ensure protection of NSW consumers.

Introducing these changes also ensures that agents stay current with industry knowledge and best practices.

For more detailed information and to download your copy of ‘2024 Supervision Guidelines’ please visit NSW Fair Trading.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Restricting or Banning Smoking in Strata

As of 1 May 2024 body corporate’s in Queensland are permitted to introduce by-laws that specifically prohibit or restrict smoking or inhaling of smoking products on common property of strata buildings.

As Queensland grapples with these changes, in NSW there are still many buildings that do not have a by-law concerning smoking, even though they are permitted to do so. This has raised questions such as:

• Is it possible to stop people smoking in a strata building without a by-law that bans smoking?
• If it is possible to stop smoking without a by-law, is it still necessary or desirable to have a by-law that bans or restricts smoking and, if so, why?

Banning Smoking without a By-Law

Somewhat surprisingly, it is possible to stop residents of a strata building smoking in their lots or on common property without a specific by-law that prohibits smoking.  Section 153 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 prohibits residents from using or enjoying their lots in a manner or for a purpose that causes a nuisance or hazard to another resident. There have been several cases over the past years in which NCAT has made orders prohibiting residents in strata buildings from smoking on the basis that smoke caused by smoking constituted a nuisance to other residents in contravention of section 153.

NCAT Smoking Cases

In May 2019, a lot owner, Martin Gisks, succeeded in obtaining an order from NCAT prohibiting the resident of another lot in his building smoking on her balcony or in her bedrooms and requiring that resident to close all exterior doors and bedroom and bathroom windows when smoking inside her lot (Gisks v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 6743 [2019] NSWCATCD 44).

In October 2022, lot owners in a different building, Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright, obtained orders from NCAT prohibiting the owners of another lot smoking or permitting any other person to smoke tobacco products on the balcony of their lot, and prohibiting them from permitting smoke from any tobacco product to be emitted from the interior of their lot into the lot of Mr Pittman and Ms Cartwright (Pittman v Newport [2022] NSWCATCD 173).

More recently, in June 2023, an owner in a strata building, Haydn Shaw, obtained an NCAT order prohibiting the owner and resident of another lot permitting the smoking of tobacco products in the courtyard of their lot (Shaw v Euen [2023] NSWCATCD 68).

In each case, NCAT concluded that the smoke caused by the smoking of cigarettes or tobacco products by residents constituted a nuisance which interfered with the amenity of other residents in contravention of section 153 of the Act.  It was on that basis that NCAT made orders prohibiting or restricting smoking in each of these cases.

Is a By-Law Banning Smoking Desirable?

These NCAT cases beg the obvious question:  does an owners corporation need to bother introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking?  The answer is “Yes” if the owners corporation wants to make it easier to ban or restrict smoking in its building.

This is because without a by-law that bans or restricts smoking:

• the owners corporation may not have standing to apply to NCAT for orders to prohibit residents smoking in a way that causes a nuisance to other residents because the owners corporation itself has not suffered from that nuisance (The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2245 v Veney [2020] NSWSC 134); and
• there is a need to prove that not only particular residents are smoking but also that the smoke from cigarettes or tobacco products has caused a nuisance to other residents by unreasonably and substantially interfering with the use and enjoyment of their lots (something which may be difficult to do).

In other words, if a by-law exists that bans smoking the owners corporation is able to enforce that by-law and to succeed it does not need to show that smoke from cigarettes constitutes a nuisance to other residents.  The owners corporation just needs to prove that particular residents are smoking in breach of the by-law.  That is much easier to do.

Conclusion

It is possible to stop residents smoking without a by-law that bans smoking.  However, it is much more difficult to do so because it requires proof that the smoking causes a nuisance to other residents.  And, there is real doubt that an owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to stop residents smoking in those circumstances.

Introducing a by-law prohibiting or restricting smoking overcomes those problems, gives the owners corporation the right to take steps through NCAT to prevent residents smoking and makes it easier for the owners corporation to win the case and put an end to smoking in its building.

DO YOU NEED A BY-LAW THAT PROHIBITS OR RESTRICTS SMOKING? CLICK HERE NOW!

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Did you know that over 5.6 million Australian households shop online every month and it’s expected to generate $35.92 billion this year growing annually by 8.33% over the next 4 years.*

The impact of this has put significant pressure on strata living.

As more and more people shop online utilising the convenience of home deliveries more and more parcels are delivered to apartment building foyers/onsite left for lot owners and tenants to collect.

But what happens if a parcel is not collected?

• How long can a parcel be left in the building foyer/onsite before it becomes rubbish?
• Is the parcel rubbish or is it in fact an abandoned good?
• Who decides if it is rubbish or an abandoned good?
• Who monitors how long the parcel has been sitting in the foyer or onsite before it becomes rubbish or an abandoned good?
• Whose responsibility is it to locate the owner?
• Should they be returned to the sender and who’s responsibility is that?
• If it is deemed rubbish or an abandoned good who’s responsible for its disposal?
• What if it’s perishable or non-perishable does that change things?
• What about the rubbish created, recycling etc?

Need a Review of your Waste and Abandoned Goods By-law?

The lesson here is to ensure that your by-law is current and in-line with today’s ever-changing world.

Most likely your waste and abandoned goods by-law is out of date and requires a review – click here now for a review.

YOUR WASTE AND ABANDONED GOODS BY-LAW MAY NEED A REVIEW

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Who is Responsible for Common Property Repairs Caused by Rain?

Sydney smashes another record rainfall in May 2024 (to date) with a deluge of rain over the past weeks across metropolitan and regional areas of New South Wales.

Extensive rainfall events test the patience of every strata manager resulting in numerous complaints about water leaks into strata lots.

Faced with endless demands, owners corporations need to be very clear about their responsibilities, so it’s timely to revisit some of the “fundamentals”.

In the article below we discuss…

Step 1 – Is it the owners corporation’s responsibility?

Step 2 – If it leaks has the common property failed?

Step 3 – Are damages payable by the owners corporation for common property failures?

For more information: Rain and Common Property Damage – Who is Responsible?

Warwick van Ede I BEc LLM I Lawyer

Since 1990, Warwick has specialised in strata law, property law and litigation. Recognised for his expertise, he is also a NSW Law Society Accredited Specialist in Property Law. In 2021 he was selected to serve on the Property Law Committee of the Law Society of NSW. Profile I LinkedIn

Contact Us

For all expert strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

As the world we live in drastically changes, people are looking for more economical and sustainable ways of living.

Many families (and others) are downsizing and moving into strata apartment living which often means they need to also review their current transport options.

The parking incident that raised many questions!

In a recent incident a lot owner was sent a notice from their owners corporation to remove a kayak from their parking lot. The kayak was stored neatly in front of their motor vehicle within the confines of their parking space.

The owners corporation said the kayak was not a vehicle so therefore it had to be removed or the owner would incur a fine. The owner argued that the kayak was a vehicle and therefore could be kept in the parking space according to the building’s by-law for parking.

• Firstly, is a kayak classified as a non-motorised vehicle?
• What if the kayak was strapped to roof racks on the motor vehicle (providing the height allowed for this), would the owner have been asked to remove the kayak?
• What if it was a non-motorised bicycle or scooter that was parked on the parking lot?
• What if it was an e-bike or an e-scooter – are they classified as motor vehicles?
• The list goes on: row boats, dinghies, skateboards, rollerblades etc all types of transport.
• Should the by-law have stipulated (among other things) motorised and non-motorised vehicles?
• What is legally deemed as a transport vehicle and what is not?

As government and local councils push communities to reduce carbon emissions – the question that must be asked is: do we need to now allow for other forms of transport vehicles with lower emissions to be parked on parking lots within strata complexes?

Do you need to review your parking by-law?

The lesson here is to ensure that your parking by-law is current and in-line with today’s ever-changing world.

Most likely your parking by-law is out of date and requires a review.

For a parking by-law review speak to our specialist strata lawyers here now.

YOUR PARKING BY-LAW NEEDS A REVIEW CLICK HERE NOW!

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

The Scenario

Mr Smith owns a residential lot in a strata building in Sydney.  The floor tiles in Mr Smith’s bathroom have cracked and are damaged beyond repair.  The building was constructed 30 years ago so matching replacement tiles cannot be found.  Is Mr Smith entitled to insist on the owners corporation re-tiling his whole bathroom so that the bathroom tiles have a uniform finish?  In this article we explore the answer to that question.

The Law

An owners corporation has a statutory duty to properly maintain and keep in good repair the common property and, where necessary to renew or replace any fixtures or fittings that form part of the common property under section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015.

This duty requires the owners corporation to replace an item of common property when it is reasonably necessary to do so because, for example, the item has been damaged beyond repair: Glenquarry Park Investments Pty Ltd v Hegyesi [2019] NSWSC425.

So what happens when tiles on the floor or a wall of a bathroom that form part of the common property are damaged beyond repair but matching tiles cannot be found.  Can the owners corporation just replace the damaged tiles doing the best it can?  Or does the owners corporation have to re-tile the entire bathroom to ensure a uniform tiled finish?

Replacing Damaged Tiles

Where tiles are damaged beyond repair and matching tiles cannot be sourced, the duty of the owners corporation is to use replacement tiles that are substantially similar in appearance, characteristics, quality and amenity to the existing tiles.  This can require the owners corporation to replace a larger section of tiles to achieve substantial similarity: Selkirk v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 2661 [2024] NSWCATAP 17.

However, this does not necessarily mean that, where matching tiles cannot be found, the owners corporation is responsible for re-tiling the entire bathroom.  There are a number of cases which make this clear.

The Cases

1. In Stolfa v Owners Strata Plan 4366 & ors [2010] NSWSC 1507 a lot owner did work which damaged five tiles on a bathroom wall in another lot. The owner of the damaged bathroom applied for an order that the other owner compensate her for the cost to re-tile the whole bathroom because matching tiles could not be found. The Court rejected that claim and was unpersuaded that such a course was reasonable, particularly in the absence of evidence establishing that a reasonably approximate matching tile, albeit not a precise match, was unachievable. The Court allowed an amount to cover the cost of re-tiling the damaged wall only.
2. In Petropoulos v CPD Holdings Pty Ltd t/as The Bathroom Exchange (No 2) [2018] NSWCATAP 233 a builder renovated a bathroom and an ensuite bathroom for a homeowner but built the shower recesses too small. The owner wanted the builder to re-tile the whole bathroom floor after enlarging the shower recesses because matching tiles could no longer be found and the owner was concerned that a patch repair would compromise the waterproofing membrane. NCAT’s Appeal Panel rejected the owner’s request and concluded that it was reasonable for the builder to attempt to match the tiles rather than completely re-tiling each bathroom. The builder was ordered to ensure that replacement tiles were of the same colour, dimensions and type as the original tiles, or if no identical replacement tiles were available, of a colour that most closely matched the original tiles.
3. In The Owners – Strata Plan No 74602 v Brookfield Australia Investments Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1916 an owners corporation sued a builder for defects. The owners corporation alleged that there were waterproofing defects in bathrooms due to incorrectly installed water stop angles as a result of which bathrooms needed to be completely re-tiled due to the difficulties in obtaining matching tiles, even though only a small number of tiles needed to be replaced. The Court concluded that this would amount to the complete demolition and reconstruction of the bathrooms which was unreasonable and unnecessary particularly as there was no evidence of water leakage from the bathrooms.
4. In SP 62930 v Kell & Rigby Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 612 an owners corporation sued a builder for various defects including waterproofing defects in bathrooms. The owners corporation asked the Court to order the builder to pay damages to cover the cost of re-tiling all of the bathrooms because matching tiles could not be found and owners were entitled to a uniform tiled finish in their bathrooms. The Court concluded that it would be unreasonable for an owner to insist on replacement of a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match could be found and installed in a place (such as an architectural break) where the joinder of the tiles would not be immediately obvious. The Court held that the floor tiles within the showers in the affected lots should be replaced, making use of an appropriate existing architectural break, and that it was not reasonable for the owners corporation to insist upon the complete re-tiling of the entirety of the bathrooms.

Analysis

These cases demonstrate that both NCAT and the Supreme Court have rejected claims for entire bathrooms to be re-tiled when a small section of tiles are damaged or defective and perfectly matching tiles cannot be found.

However, in general, the owners corporation will still need to ensure that the work it does to replace the damaged tiles achieves an acceptable aesthetic finish.  This may require the owners corporation to re-do more than just replace the damaged tiles.  It can require the owners corporation to replace, for example, one or more walls which contain damaged tiles or an entire shower recess by making use of appropriate architectural breaks.

Ultimately, each case turns on its own facts but it will often be the case that it will be unreasonable for an owner to insist on an owners corporation replacing a large quantity of undamaged tiles at great cost if a close match can be found to achieve an acceptable aesthetic finish.

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Caution as Lithium Batteries the Fastest Growing Fire Risk in NSW Units

The message from Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) regarding the rise of lithium-ion battery-related fires across NSW is ‘be alert, cautious and proactive’.

It’s important that strata managers, strata committees and strata residents understand the fire risks related with lithium-ion batteries and to be prepared if things go wrong.

FRNSW has Published these Statistics

• 63 lithium-ion battery fires so far this year
• An average of 5.7 blazes per week
• Of those, there have been 2 deaths and 7 people injured
• On 14 March, 4 injuries occurred on that day, including due to a faulty battery discarded in a garbage bin that later ignited in a rubbish truck
• During 2023 injuries rose from 14 to 38 and have continued to rise
• In 2023, lithium-ion battery fires increased by 60% on the previous year

Sydney’s East Most Notable E-bike Fire Incidence

The most notable incident was in Sydney’s east in the highly dense suburb of North Bondi in late January 2024, with a faulty e-bike battery was left to charge overnight in a bedroom, and ignited, sparking a fire.

The four occupants were awoken at 4am by an explosion, and a fire alarm sounding, and luckily all escaped just in time, but one required treatment for a burn.

Lithium-ion batteries can be found in many household appliances and portable electronic-devices not only in e-bikes and e-scooters however with the increase of e-vehicles this has been the main cause for the increase in lithium battery fires.

FRNSW has expressed that greater awareness and education is needed about how to select, use, charge, store, and dispose of lithium-ion batteries, to reduce the risk of fire.

Important Proacative Safety Advice

• Never sleep or leave your home while lithium-ion batteries, or devices powered by them, are still charging
• Disconnect them from the charger once charged
• Avoid charging or storing them near exits and near flammable materials
• Never dispose of them in your rubbish, bins or recycling bins
• Used lithium-ion batteries can be taken to your nearest BCycle battery recycling drop-off point, often located in major retailers and supermarkets
• It’s important to always buy lithium-ion batteries and chargers from reputable brands and refrain from mixing different components
• You should have an e-bike/e-scooter by-law in place to manage residents and fire safety
• For more information visit FRNSW Lithium-ion Battery Safety
• If such a fire occurs, evacuate immediately, and call 000

REDUCE THE RISK OF BATTERY FIRE WITH A E-SCOOTER / E-BIKE BY-LAW

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Is there a need to update your short-term letting by-law?

Major players, Airbnb and Stayz, in the short term rental accommodation (STRA) market have both committed to support the NSW government’s tourism levy by way of a formal submission.

However, both players are calling for all tourism accommodation operators including hotels to also foot the new tax.

The NSW government’s review of STRA is in response to growing calls for stricter regulations on the burgeoning short-term rental market, which has faced criticism for its impact on housing affordability and local communities.

The levy is structured to ensure that larger operators, who derive substantial income from short-term rentals, contribute their fair share to the local economy. At the same time, it aims to minimize the impact on small-scale operators and homeowners who rent out their properties occasionally.

For more information: Airbnb and Stayz Accept Tourism Levy for Holiday Stays

DO YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR SHORT TERM RENTAL BY-LAW?

Adrian Mueller I BCOM LLB FACCAL I Partner

Since 2002 Adrian has specialised almost exclusively in the area of strata law. His knowledge of, and experience in strata law is second to none. He is the youngest person to have been admitted as a Fellow of the ACSL, the peak body for strata lawyers in Australia. Profile I Linked

Contact Us

For all strata law advice including by-laws, building defects and levy collections contact our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.