Strata Lot Owner and Owners Corporation in Dispute

Is it legitimate for a lot owner to pressure an owners corporation not to sue her or defend legal action she takes against the owners corporation?  And what happens when the lot owner oversteps the mark?  Can the owner be held in contempt of court?  A recent NCAT case considered that very issue.

Background

There is an apartment building on Sydney’s lower North Shore which contains 6 lots.  For several years, the owners corporation and a lot owner have been in dispute about various matters.  The dispute culminated in proceedings being commenced by both the owners corporation and the owner in NCAT against each other.  The owners corporation alleged that the owner engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate, harass and deter the owners corporation from defending the proceedings she had commenced in NCAT against the owners corporation or to improperly induce a settlement of those proceedings.  The owners corporation applied to NCAT to have the owner referred to the Supreme Court for contempt or a finding that the owner was in contempt of NCAT and that she be punished and restrained from communicating with representatives of the owners corporation in certain ways.

Owner’s Conduct

The conduct of the owner which the owners corporation considered constituted contempt included threats of disciplinary action against the owners corporation’s solicitor made by the owner, communications by the owner which impugned the professional and mental capacities and motives of the owners corporation’s solicitor, contact by the owner with partners of the firm at which that solicitor worked concerning the conduct of the solicitor, contact by the owner with employers of strata committee members and references to family members of the strata committee members made by the owner in various communications.  The case of the owners corporation was that those communications by the owner impermissibly sought to pressure the owners corporation into deciding not to defend, or to settle, the proceedings in NCAT that the owner had commenced against the owners corporation.

The Law

A person can commit a contempt of court if he or she seeks to dissuade a litigant from prosecuting or defending proceedings by making unlawful threats, by abuse or by misrepresenting the nature of the litigation.  The law distinguishes between proper and improper pressure in punishing interference with litigants.  The question is whether the pressure sought to be applied in a particular case can be described as improper which, in turn, depends on all the circumstances of the case.  Improper pressure can interfere with the administration of justice and that is why it can constitute a contempt of court.

The Outcome

NCAT concluded that whilst some of the owner’s communications were inappropriate and included abusive emails that were puerile in their tone and content, the owners corporation did not prove that those communications caused the representatives of the owners corporation to be intimidated or caused the owners corporation to capitulate or settle the proceedings the owner had commenced against it.  In other words, even though the owner may have engaged in conduct which was intended to intimidate the owners corporation or its solicitor to discourage them from defending the proceedings, the evidence did not establish that the owner had been successful in doing so or had deterred, or was reasonably likely to deter, the owners corporation from defending the proceedings the owner had commenced against it or from prosecuting the proceedings it had commenced against the owner.  Consequently, NCAT concluded that it had not been established that the owner committed a contempt and therefore refused to refer the owner to the Supreme Court.

Anything Else?

The NCAT case contains an interesting, albeit brief, discussion of the consequences for an owner who sends threatening, rude or offensive communications to representatives of an owners corporation.  NCAT concluded that the owner’s communications may expose her to the risk of defamation proceedings and observed that communications which attempt to threaten, intimidate or influence witnesses are unlawful under the Crimes Act 1900 and that use of telecommunications devices, such as emails, that threaten or harass any person also constitutes criminal conduct under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004.  That indicates that representatives of the owners corporation who receive abusive, rude and offensive communications from an owner are not without remedy.

Case: The Owners – Strata Plan No. 38308 v Gelder (No. 2) [2023] NSWCATEN 7.

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.

Strata be Warned of Telecommunications Providers

Earlier this year we wrote about an increasing rise of telecommunications providers who are licensed under the relevant Commonwealth telecommunications legislation, using their powers to gain compulsory access (at no cost to them!) to owners corporation’s buildings.  In that article (Pushy Telco’s and Owners Corporations) we drew to the attention of owners corporations that such telecommunications providers use the processes set out in the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications Code of Practice and in particular, the use of a Notice to Inspect and a Notice to Install.  We pointed out in that article that if an owners corporation does not respond within very precise timeframes to these Notices, then the owners corporation loses its ability to object to the proposals set out in those Notices,  and they lose their ability to require the relevant telecommunications provider to consider any alternatives.

Ongoing Developments Since Our Original Article

Since the time of our original article, it has been clear that the activities of these telecommunications providers (which go by various names,  including GigaComm, and Servicestream) has continued, with more and more Notices to Inspect and Notices to Install coming to our attention.

Owners Corporations Act or Lose your Rights

Telecommunications service providers have written to us unhappy that they are being challenged,  and they have suggested that they are only utilising the rights which they have under the telecommunications legislation.  What they fail to comprehend is that landowners (such as owners corporations) also have rights to object to the proposals by telecommunications service providers, and certain rights  to require telecommunications service providers to properly justify these proposals.

To be clear, if an owners corporation wishes to question a proposal which they receive from a telecommunications service provider, then it is essential and critical that the owners corporation acts in a timely and immediate fashion to ensure that a properly draft Notice of Objection is served on the telecommunications service provider, or the owners corporation may be stuck with whatever proposal the telecommunications service provider wishes to proceed with.

Unsure What to do…

If your owners corporation requires assistance with a proposal from a telecommunications service provider, we are experienced in the processes under the telecommunications legislation including in drafting Notices of Objection in compliance with that legislation.

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 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.

Do your strata by-laws keep pace with strata law changes?

In Nov 2016, every owners corporation was required to review its by-laws within 12 months.

Most owners corporations completed their by-law review by 2018.

Since then, there have been numerous changes to the laws affecting strata buildings.

Strata law changes affecting strata buildings

They include substantial changes to the laws regulating:

• Short term rental accommodation arrangements – a by-law can now ban short term lettings in certain circumstances;
• Pets – a by-law can no longer ban pets and by-laws that do are not enforceable;
• Renovations – the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 now applies to many renovations – do your renovations by-laws require owners to comply with the Act?;
• Fire Safety – news fire safety laws will be introduced to increase fire safety standards for strata buildings – do your by-laws allow your owners corporations to recover fire safety upgrade costs from owners?;
• Sustainability Infrastructure – new strata laws relax the requirement for approval of sustainability infrastructure such as solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations;
• Levy Recovery – there remains controversy about recovery of debt collection costs – do your by-laws allow these costs to be recorded in an owner’s ledger and recovered by the owners corporation?

Do your by-laws take into account these changes to the law?

If not, they might not be enforceable or they might simply be outdated.

So is it time to again review your by-laws? We have conducted 100’s of by-law reviews for owners corporations across NSW.

DO YOU NEED A REVIEW OF YOUR BY-LAWS?

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.

An owner is entitled to appoint a “person” to act as his or her proxy at a general meeting of an owners corporation.

But does that allow an owner to appoint a company as his or her proxy rather than an individual?  The answer might surprise you.

 Is it Possible for an Owner to Appoint a Company as their Proxy?

Owners in strata buildings regularly appoint other people to act as their proxies at general meetings of owners corporations.  Invariably, those proxies are individuals, often other lot owners.  But is it possible for an owner to appoint a company as his or her proxy to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation?  If so, who is entitled to exercise voting rights on behalf of the company as proxy?  The answer lies in the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Act) and other legislation.

An Analysis

An owner is entitled to appoint a “person” to act as his or her proxy at a general meeting: cl 23(3) and 26(1), Sch 1 of the Act.  However, the Act does not provide a definition of a “person”.  But it is clear that a person can be an individual or a company for several reasons.

First, the Interpretation Act 1987 says that in any Act “person” includes an individual or a company: section 3(3) and Sch 4.

Second, the expression “person” is used throughout the Act in a way that makes clear that it can include both an individual or a company.  For example:

• section 7 expressly provides that a person can be a company for the purpose of determining whether a person is connected with another person;
• section 10(2) prohibits an owners corporation delegating any of its functions to a person unless the delegation is specifically authorised by the Act and it is clear that a “person” in that context would include a strata managing agent which would typically be a company;
• section 12 allows the owners corporation to employ any person that it thinks fit to assist it exercise its functions which includes a building manager which typically carries on business through a company;
• section 22 requires a “person” who has an interest in a lot that gives the person a right to cast a vote either personally or by nominee at meetings of the owners corporation to give the owners corporation written notice of that interest – in that context, a “person” clearly includes a company which owns a lot which is able to cast a vote via a company nominee.

There are other indications from the language used in the Act that a person is not limited to an individual but can include a company.  For example:

• The Act gives a co owner of a lot (which could be company) the right to vote at a general meeting in certain circumstances: cl 23(4) and (5) Sch 1;
• An original owner (i.e. the developer) can cast a vote by means of a proxy in certain circumstances (and a developer is almost invariably a company): cl 25(5) and (6), Sch 1; and
• A building manager or strata manager can vote as a proxy provided that their vote does not result in them obtaining a material benefit (and a building manager and strata manager are typically a company): cl 25(7), Sch 1.

Moreover, the expression “person” where used in legislation has repeatedly been interpreted by the Courts to mean both an individual and a company: see In the matter of Metal Storm Limited (in liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1682.

There are other reasons why an owner can appoint a company as his or her proxy.  For example, a company can be appointed as an attorney under a power of attorney and the appointment of an attorney is similar to the appointment of a proxy given that in both cases a person is appointing another person or company to act as his or her agent.

And in sphere of company law, a shareholder can appoint a “person” as his or her proxy to vote at meetings of a company and it is clear that the person who is appointed as the proxy can be either an individual or a company: see section 249X of the Corporations Act 2001.

Finally, there is nothing in the Act which explicitly prohibits an owner appointing a company as his or her proxy.

Who Exercises Proxy Voting Rights?

Where an owner appoints a company as his or her proxy, the company itself cannot exercise voting rights as the proxy.  So who does?

Obviously, a company that is appointed as a proxy needs to appoint an individual to exercise the powers of the company as a proxy.  That would typically be done by a written notice given by the company to the owners corporation specifically empowering the individual to act on behalf of the company as proxy at meetings of the owners corporation.  Normally, that individual would be the company secretary or a director of the company.  But as long as the person is properly authorised by the company to exercise proxy voting rights on its behalf, and the owners corporation has notice of that authority, he or she may do so.

Conclusion

Whilst it is uncommon for an owner to appoint a company as his or her proxy, that situation can arise.  When it does, an individual with the authority of the company that the owners corporation has notice of is able to exercise the company’s proxy voting rights on behalf of the owner.

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.

There are more than 85,000 strata schemes in NSW with approximately one in seven NSW residents living in strata apartments and it’s estimated by 2040 this will grow by 50 percent in Greater Sydney!

So, it’s no suprise that the number of people living in strata applying to NCAT for orders to resolve strata disputes has significantly increased by 45% over the last 5 years.

Cases related to water leaks, delays in fixing leaks and claims for compensation for rental loss have played a major role in the growth of NCAT cases.

In this article we take a closer look at the responsibility of an owners corporation to repair common property water leak damage.

The Duty to Repair

Section 106 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Act) imposes on an owners corporation a duty to:

(a) properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property;

(b) where necessary, renew or replace any fixtures or fittings comprised in the common property.

This duty requires an owners corporation to fix any defects in the common property that are allowing water to leak into a lot.

The Nature of the Duty to Repair

The duty of the owners corporation to maintain and repair common property has been considered in a number of cases.

In those cases, the Supreme Court and NCAT has said that the duty to repair common property:

(a) is compulsory;

(b) is absolute; and

(c) is not a duty to use reasonable care to maintain and repair common property or to take reasonable steps to do so but a strict duty to maintain and keep in repair.

This means that an owners corporation cannot delay any repairs that need to be carried out to fix defects in the common property that are causing water to leak into a lot.  Even if it is impossible to find contractors who are available to repair those defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying any necessary repairs to common property.

Other Aspects of The Duty to Repair

There are other aspects of the duty to repair common property that are often overlooked particularly in the case of new buildings or where a tenant damages common property.

The Supreme Court and NCAT have held that the duty to repair common property:

(a) extends to require the remediation of defects in the original construction of the building;

(b) must still be fulfilled even if the owners corporation did not cause the damage to the common property which needs to be repaired.

This means that, in general, an owners corporation cannot blame an original builder or developer for defects in the common property and refuse to fix them.  However, if the owners corporation takes legal action against a builder or developer in respect of defects in the original construction of the common property, then the owners corporation can put on hold its obligation to repair common property defects.

Further, the cases say that even if a person damages the common property, in general, the owners corporation must still repair that damage, even though it may have a right to recover the cost of that repair from the offender.  Alternatively, under section 132 of the Act, the owners corporation can apply to NCAT for an order to require an owner or occupier to repair damage to the common property caused by them.  It appears that if the owners corporation takes legal action against an owner or occupier in NCAT to obtain that order, that allows the owners corporation to put on hold its duty to repair the damage.

Anything Else?

The duty to repair the common property also requires the owners corporation to carry out repairs which are not for the benefit of the majority of owners.  Indeed, the owners corporation is obliged to carry out repairs to the common property that only benefit a single owner.  This means that an owners corporation cannot refuse to repair a leaking window on common property on the basis that the leak only affects one lot.

Is there an Escape Route?

There are generally two ways for an owners corporation to relieve itself from its duty to repair common property (apart from the ways we have discussed above).

First, an owners corporation can pass a special resolution at a general meeting to determine that it is inappropriate to repair a particular item of common property.  This can be done under section 106(3) of the Act but only if the decision will not affect the safety of the building or detract from the building’s appearance.

Second, an owners corporation can make a common property rights by-law that transfers its responsibility for the repair of a particular item of common property to one or more owners.  The by-law needs to be approved by a special resolution at a general meeting.  However, the by-law also needs to be approved by the owners who will be responsible for repairing the item of common property under the by-law.  Often it proves difficult to obtain the consent of those owners.

What about Compensation?

Inclement weather can cause a substantial increase in claims for compensation being made by owners against owners corporations who have failed to repair defects that have allowed water to leak into and cause damage to lot property.  Typically, those claims are made by investor owners for rental loss when the damage to their lots become so severe that the lots are uninhabitable.  But compensation claims can also cover alternate accommodation expenses if an owner occupier is forced to move out of a lot due to damage caused by water ingress, the costs an owner incurs cleaning and repairing lot property (e.g. replacing saturated carpet), experts’ fees and legal costs.  The liability of an owners corporation to pay compensation to an owner is a strict one.

This can make it difficult for owners corporations to defend compensation claims that are made by owners as a result of common property defects that allow water to leak into and damage lot property. Indeed, one Court has remarked that this puts an owners corporation into the position of an insurer.

Conclusion

Even though it may be difficult to find contractors who are able to repair common property defects, that does not provide an owners corporation with a lawful excuse for delaying essential repairs and maintenance.  The duty to repair is a strict one and there are limited exceptions to that rule.  This emphasizes the importance of proactive and ongoing building maintenance to help avoid the problems that many owners corporations are now encountering.

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.

Does an owners corporation have to enforce its by-laws?  If an owners corporation decides to ignore breaches of its by-laws, can NCAT force the owners corporation to take action and enforce its by-laws?  A recent NCAT case provides the answer to these questions.

Introduction

Almost every strata building is governed by a set of by-laws. Those by-laws set out rules that regulate behaviour, noise, the keeping of pets and, among other things, the performance of renovations.  The by-laws are binding on the owners corporation and the owners and occupiers of the lots.  An owners corporation has the power to enforce the by-laws if they are breached.  For example, an owners corporation can issue an owner or occupier of a lot with a notice to comply with a by-law or apply to NCAT for an order to require the owner or occupier to obey a by-law.  But what happens when an owners corporation decides to turn a blind eye to a breach of a by-law committed by an owner?  Can the owners corporation be forced to enforce the by-law against the culprit?  If so, by whom?  A recent NCAT case reveals the answers to these questions.

The Case

Suzanne Lyon owns a lot in a residential strata scheme in Wollstonecraft, Sydney.  In August 2020, the owners corporation created a common property rights by-law to give the owner of the lot beneath Ms Lyon’s lot, Mr Swanson, the right to build a pergola over his rear courtyard.  Subsequently, Mr Swanson built the pergola, but Ms Lyon claimed that the pergola did not comply with the by-law because it was too high.  The by-law had permitted the pergola to be 2.7m above the concrete floor of the courtyard but it was built about 3.21m above that concrete floor.  Ms Lyon wanted the pergola to be removed or modified but the owners corporation was not prepared to force Mr Swanson to change the pergola.  For that reason, Ms Lyon sued the owners corporation in NCAT and sought orders to require the owners corporation to remove Mr Swanson’s pergola or enforce the common property rights by-law by requiring the pergola to comply with it.

The Outcome

Ms Lyon’s claim was partially successful.  NCAT agreed with Ms Lyon that the pergola was too high and was not built in accordance with the by-law.  NCAT then considered whether it had power to make an order to force the owners corporation to enforce the by-law and require Mr Swanson to comply with it by changing the height of the pergola.  NCAT concluded that it did have that power because it could make an order, on the request of an owner, to settle a complaint or dispute about the failure of an owners corporation to exercise its functions including its power to enforce a by-law.  NCAT held that there would be a sufficient basis to make an order where an owners corporation has a discretion to exercise a function (such as its discretionary power to enforce a by-law) but decides not to do so.  NCAT considered that there was little point in the strata legislation creating a mechanism for an owners corporation to pass a common property rights by-law merely to have that by-law flouted and for the owners corporation to fail to act in the face of complaints from other owners and legal advice it had received.  Ultimately, NCAT concluded that the owners corporation’s failure to manage Mr Swanson’s non compliance with the by-law, or to make any attempt to require him to comply with the by-law, meant that an order should be made requiring the owners corporation to exercise its functions to administer the strata scheme for the benefit of the owners and in accordance with the by-laws.

The Orders

For those reasons, NCAT ordered the owners corporation to take all necessary steps to require Mr Swanson to comply with the by-law by requiring him to reduce the height of the pergola to 2.7m above the concrete surface of his courtyard.  However, NCAT gave the owners corporation 6 months to comply with that order to allow Mr Swanson sufficient time to apply to the owners corporation for approval to amend the by-law to permit the pergola to remain at a height of 3.21m above the courtyard floor and for that amendment to the by-law to be approved by the owners corporation.

Analysis

This case is one of the first times that NCAT has made an order to compel an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws.  The decision does break new ground because it was previously thought that because the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 does not explicitly require an owners corporation to enforce its by-laws but rather gives an owners corporation a discretion to do so, it was not possible for NCAT to force an owners corporation to require owners and occupiers to comply with its by-laws.  The order made in the case begs the question: What does the owners corporation need to do to take “all necessary steps” to require an owner to comply with a by-law?  Does that require the owners corporation to issue a notice to comply with the by-law against the owner?  Or does it require the owners corporation to do more and, if necessary, take legal action against the owner to force him or her to comply with the by-law?  And what if the owners corporation is successful in that legal action, but the owner ignores orders that are made to require him or her to comply with the by-law?  What is the owners corporation required to do then?  It remains to be seen whether those questions will need to be answered by NCAT in the future.

Conclusion

The case sends a message that owners and occupiers of lots who are affected by breaches of the by-laws committed by other owners and occupiers are not helpless.  They can apply to NCAT for orders to force their owners corporation to enforce the by-laws against those in breach of them.  It remains to be seen whether the decision in Lyon v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 11045 [2023] NSWCATCD 31 will be followed in future cases.

/*! elementor - v3.14.0 - 26-06-2023 */
.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.

Fire Orders and Cost Recovery By-laws

An owners corporation is only responsible for the common property in its strata scheme.  So how does an owners corporation deal with a fire order that requires it to do work to lot property?  Can a Council issue a fire order against an owners corporation to do work to lot property? If so, can the owners corporation make a by-law to recover from owners the costs it incurs doing fire safety work in their lots? The answers might surprise you.

Strata Law

An owners corporation is the owner of the common property it is strata scheme.  The owners corporation is responsible for managing and controlling the use of the common property and maintaining and repairing the common property.  Those obligations arise under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (Strata Act).

An owners corporation does not own the lots in its strata scheme, and under that Act, the owners corporation has virtually no responsibility in relation to any of the lots.  This is because the lots are privately owned and the owners and occupiers of the lots are generally responsible for managing and maintaining them.  So, under the Strata Act, the owners corporation is generally not responsible for maintaining and repairing lot property.  Further, in general, the owners corporation is only able to adopt budgets and raise levies to cover expenses associated with the common property, not lot property

Fire Orders

But what happens when a Local Council issues a fire order that requires an owners corporation to carry out work to both common property and lot property.  Does the Council have power to issue that order? And does the owners corporation have power to comply with the order and do work that affects lot property?

Planning Laws

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) gives a Local Council power to order the owner of premises to do things that are specified in the order in order the promote adequate fire safety in a building when provisions for fire safety in the building are inadequate to prevent, suppress or prevent the spread of fire.  The EPA Act says that premises include a building and that an owner includes, in the case of land that is the subject of a strata scheme, an owners corporation.  Therefore, the EPA Act gives a Local Council power to order an owners corporation to carry out work to improve fire safety to both common property and lot property.

Case Law

This was confirmed by the NSW Court of Appeal as long ago as 1985.  In 1985, the Court decided the case of Proprietors of Strata Plan 159 v Parramatta City Council.  In that case, the Council had issued a fire safety order to the owners corporation of a strata building which required the owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades principally in two lots which were to be used as a restaurant.  The owners corporation challenged the order and argued that the order unfairly burdened other owners with the costs of carrying out fire safety upgrades predominately to those two lots.  However, the Court concluded that the statutory language was clear in permitting a Council to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that required work to be done to lot property.  The Court acknowledged that this meant that sometimes the costs of complying with a fire order would be shared by all of the owners even when the need for fire safety upgrades was confined exclusively to the lots of some of the owners which may seem inequitable.

But the Court considered that there were two answers to this problem.  First, if the legislation clearly allowed a fire order to require an owners corporation to do work to lot property the mere fact that might produce a sense of injustice between owners was not a reason for the Court frustrating the clearly expressed intention of the legislature and it was a matter for the Parliament to change the legislation to overcome any unfairness if it saw fit to do so.  Second, fire is a phenomenon which endangers all owners and occupiers of lots meaning all owners have a common interest in fire prevention and fire safety.  This meant that it made sense for the legislation to allow the Council to issue one fire order against the owners corporation rather than have to issue and monitor compliance with multiple fire orders against numerous parties.  Ultimately, the Court considered that it was in the common interest of all owners for the Council to have the power to issue the fire order against the owners corporation.  The Court’s decision has recently been referred to with approval by NCAT.

Recovery of Costs

If a Council can require an owners corporation to carry out fire safety upgrades to lot property, can the owners corporation recover the cost of performing those upgrades from the relevant owners?  There is no clear answer to that question.  Many owners corporations have introduced cost recovery type by-laws that purport to allow them to recover costs from owners in a variety of circumstances.  There have been several recent cases in which NCAT has invalidated cost recovery type by-laws.  But there are also cases where NCAT has upheld cost recovery type by-laws. Ultimately, if an owners corporation wants to seek to recover from certain owners the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in their lots, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place but there may be difficulty enforcing the by-law.

Conclusion

A Council is entitled to issue a fire order against an owners corporation that requires fire safety upgrades to be carried out to lot property.  Where that occurs, the Strata Act gives the owners corporation the right to enter the lots in order the do the work required by the fire order.  If an owners corporation wants to recover the costs it incurs carrying out fire safety upgrades in a particular lot, a cost recovery type by-law will need to be put in place for that purpose.  However, NCAT has recently raised question marks over the validity of cost recovery type by-laws so the recovery of those costs cannot be guaranteed.

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.

Strata apartments come with many perks for owners and tenants but of course, there’s also a downside with one of the biggest complaints being noise. As more and more people enjoy apartment living noise complaints have increased in recent times by 33%* and they continue to rise.

What are top noise complaints in strata?

• Barking dogs
• Power tools
• Loud music
• Alarms
• Construction/renovations
• Vehicles
• Wooden/tiled floors
• Children

And… some of the more unusual complaints in more recent times include:

• Tap dancing
• Assembling IKEA furniture
• Loud urinating at night is becoming one of the most common reasons for sleep-­deprived apartment dwellers
• Late night showers

What if your strata by-law neglects to mention specific issues around noise?

A well written noise by-law can go much further than the model by-law and provide residents with guidelines and time restrictions for when they can and can’t make noise. It also lets neighbours know their rights if they feel the need to make a noise complaint.

Did you know if your noise by-laws are insufficient or lacking clarity on noise related matters our specialist team of strata lawyers can assist you in updating or developing your noise by-law.

*NSW Department of Fair Trading

DOES YOUR NOISE BY-LAW NEED TO BE REVIEWED?

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.

Owners corporations are increasingly encountering aggressive behaviour by some telecommunications providers who say they are acting under powers granted to them pursuant to the Telecommunications Act.

Preserving the owners corporation’s rights and negotiating position can come down to whether the owners corporation responds in a timely fashion, and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Failure to do these things may mean the owners corporation is stuck with a proposal to install infrastructure and technology which the owners do not want.

It is important that you understand the steps which your owners corporation needs to take in dealing with such telecommunications providers.

The Rise of “Low Impact” Telecommunications Infrastructure

Once upon a time, the only occasion on which an owners corporation would hear from a telecommunications provider was if that telecommunications provider wished to install a mobile telephone tower on top of the building comprising the strata scheme.

In most instances this would lead to negotiations between the owners corporation and the relevant telecommunications provider as to the nature of the leasing arrangement which would be put in place to enable that mobile telephone tower to be erected and maintained and almost always the owners corporation would receive rental income as a result of allowing such installation to take place.

Under the Telecommunications Code of Practice 2021, telecommunications providers can give notices to an owners corporation in relation to their intention to use owners corporation’s property for various purposes.  Typically, these notices include:

• The Inspection Notice – this notice provides the owners corporation with notice of the telecommunications provider’s intention to enter the strata scheme carry out an inspection of the building or buildings comprising the strata scheme to enable the telecommunications provider to consider whether it wishes to proceed with any further proposals; and/or
• The Installation Notice – typically, a notice of this kind provides the owners corporation with written notice of the telecommunication provider’s intention to install certain “low impact” telecommunications infrastructure and systems – the notion of what is “low impact” is defined by the relevant legislation.

The Importance of Responding

The relevant legislation requires that an owners corporation receiving a notice from a telecommunications provider under the relevant legislation must respond:

• in writing;
• within a certain limited timeframe; and
• in a specified manner,

otherwise the telecommunications provider may automatically have rights to do certain things pursuant to the relevant legislation.  For example, if the owners corporation fails to properly respond and/or fails to respond within the timeframes governed by the legislation, then the owners corporation may find itself without any basis to argue against a telecommunications provider installing certain equipment and infrastructure on the building, including certain forms of antennas, cabling etc.

“Pushing Back” Against Telecommunications Providers

Over the last 12 months we have seen a rise in the instances of such proposals, and specifically, of inspection notices or installation notices being given to owners corporations.

Normally the manner in which an owners corporation can respond is extremely limited, as is the time in which an owners corporation can respond.

Interestingly, when we have been engaged to object to those notices (in accordance with the relevant parts of the telecommunications legislation) then the telecommunications providers have, almost in every instance, withdrawn their notices and decided not to further engage with that particular owners corporation.

Therefore , even if the situation appears to have been “lost”, where  the owners corporation has failed to take any steps to deal with an inspection notice or installation notice, it is still worth engaging legal advisors to formally object to those notices, as it appears that telecommunications providers may not be willing to take on a “hostile” owners corporation, properly engaged.

Timing is Everything!

Should your owners corporation receive a notice from a telecommunications provider, then it is critical that you seek advice promptly, as some of the timeframes in which the owners corporation is entitled to respond are only 10 days in length.

Under the relevant legislation, any objection must deal with certain specified matters.

Need assistance with a proposal from a telecommunications service provider, we are experienced in the processes under the telecommunications legislation including drafting ‘Notices of Objection’ in compliance with that legislation. CLICK HERE!

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 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.

Short-term rental accommodation (STRA) in strata properties will continue to be a highly contentious topic in 2023 with even more scrutiny and increasing backlash to the industry because of the current housing crisis.

Since February 2023 there has been a significant rise in complaints about short term letting guests impacting strata blocks due to noisy parties, visitors coming and going, rubbish not being disposed of properly or at all and common property damage, among many other complaints.

Since 2021 the number of New South Wales properties listed as short-term rentals has surged by 42% with over 45,000 listed STRA properties, causing the State’s Planning Minister to review proposed annual caps later this year.

Councils Take Action to Regulate STRA

Many local councils are beginning to take action to regulate short-term letting in their areas introducing a raft of regulations for short-term letting with some councils increasing their council rates for property owners who short-term let for more than 60 days.

The Independent Planning Commission in early May 2023 advised that councils ‘should’ be allowed to impose a 60-day cap on short-term rentals after Byron Shire last year attempted to introduce a 90-day cap.

The NSW government is expecting 12 councils to call for strict caps on short-term rentals.

A decision is yet to be made regarding the capping of STRA properties however this trend is expected to continue in 2023, with more local councils introducing more controls to regulate the STRA letting sector.

STRA By-Law

In NSW, an owners corporation can introduce a by-law that restricts STRA. Many strata building have introduced STRA by-laws that prohibit unlawful STRA and regulate permissible STRA. Anecdotal evidence is that these by-laws have proven effective in reducing problems associated with STRA.

Is it time to review your Short Term Rental Accommodation (STRA) by-laws?

DOES YOUR STRA BY-LAW NEED TO BE REVIEWED? CLICK 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.