Smart doorbells, Ring cameras, and digital peepholes have fast become standard home security upgrades for modern apartment living.

However, when a device mounted to an apartment door continuously records the shared hallway, captures a neighbour’s entry, or records private corridor conversations, what feels like personal security to one resident quickly becomes an immediate breach of privacy to another.

For Strata Committees and Strata Managers, these popular gadgets are sparking complex resident disputes. Navigating the boundary between an owner’s desire for safety, the rules governing common property modifications, and strict state surveillance legislation requires a clear, proactive legal framework.

The Legal Trilemma: Common Property, Privacy & the Law

When a resident installs a smart camera outside their front door, the conflict falls across three legal intersections:

1. Common Property & Model By-Law Deficiencies

Most standard model by-laws such as legacy rules covering ‘Damage to Common Property’ or minor cosmetic changes were never drafted to address digital recording devices.

• Mounting a device to an entrance door frame or outer wall involves fixing equipment to common property.

• Standard model by-laws lack clear boundaries regarding field of view, continuous recording, or audio capture over shared spaces.

2. The Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW)

Under Section 8 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), it is generally an offence to knowingly install or use an optical surveillance device on property without the express or implied consent of the owner or occupier if it captures private activity.

Furthermore, capturing audio of private conversations in common hallways without the consent of all parties involved can trigger severe statutory penalties.

3. Nuisance & Unreasonable Interference

Under Section 153 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW), an owner or occupier must not use or enjoy their lot, or common property, in a manner that causes a nuisance or unreasonable interference with another resident. A camera pointed directly at a neighbor’s front door or living area often constitutes a legal nuisance under NCAT precedent.

Why Standard Schemes Are at Risk

Relying on informal agreements or generic model by-laws leaves Owners Corporations vulnerable:

• Unregulated Fields of View: Cameras capturing neighbour doorways, interior lot views when doors open, or shared lifts.

• Audio Recording Exposure: Uncontrolled continuous audio capture exposing residents and the scheme to Surveillance Devices Act breaches.

• NCAT Disputes: Without a tailored by-law, committees lack a direct enforcement mechanism to compel the immediate removal or repositioning of intrusive devices, leading to costly tribunal proceedings.

The Solution: A Tailored ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices’ By-Law

Rather than banning security tech outright or dealing with escalated resident complaints after a camera is installed, proactive committees adopt a specialised, scheme-wide framework.

A bespoke ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices By-Law’ provides a clear approval pathway while setting enforceable operational conditions:

Protect Your Scheme Today

Don’t wait for a hallway surveillance conflict to escalate into a formal NCAT dispute or privacy breach. Establishing clear, legally sound parameters protects your committee, upholds resident privacy, and keeps your scheme compliant with NSW law.

• Drafting custom ‘Smart Security & Surveillance Devices By-Laws’ tailored specifically to your building layout and entry systems.

• Reviewing existing scheme by-laws and advising committees on pending camera approval applications.

• Representing owners corporations in NCAT proceedings regarding unapproved devices, common property alterations, and nuisance claims

Speak to our specialist strata legal team today about implementing a custom ‘Surveillance By-Law’ for your scheme.

Facing a smart camera dispute or looking to update your security rules?

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

Need Expert Strata Law Advice?

Whether you are navigating a complex dispute or looking to protect your scheme, our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers are here to help. We provide clear, practical advice on all aspects of strata law, including by-laws, strata disputes, building defects, and fast levy debt collections. Call our team on 02 9562 1266 or email us here today.

The arrival of a new financial year brings two distinct waves of renovation requests across every strata scheme:

1. Investors and Landlords: Pushing for upgrades to maximise their tax deductions before the end of financial year and getting ready for new financial year.
2. Owner-Occupiers: Looking to refresh their living spaces for the year ahead.

For strata managers and committee members, balancing these requests quickly while keeping the building compliant is a high-wire act. Especially as we navigate the progressive change of reform under current NSW strata laws. Without a formally registered Renovation By-law, both types of owners face severe hidden risks that can derail their property goals.

The Risk for Investors: Tax & Insurance Vulnerability

Enthusiastic landlords frequently rush into property updates without realising that generic committee permissions do not offer true legal security.

• The Insurance Trap: If a new hard flooring installation or layout modification causes issues down the track, building insurers often deny coverage if the work isn’t backed by a registered, official by-law.
• The Sale Block: When an investor decides to sell, an astute buyer’s strata search will flag undocumented work. Without a registered by-law attached to the lot’s title, the sale can easily stall or fall through completely.

The Risk for Owner-Occupiers: Liability & Compliance Exposure

While owner-occupiers are generally upgrading for lifestyle rather than tax benefits, they face a different kind of legal exposure under the current rules.

• The Maintenance Liability: By default, the owners corporation is responsible for common property. If an owner updates a bathroom or kitchen and accidentally affects common property structure or waterproofing, they can be held personally liable for thousands in structural repairs.
• The Strict Turnaround Rule: For minor renovations, committees face tight legislative turnaround times for approvals. Mismanaging this process can lead to unauthorised works, building disputes, and costly NCAT litigation.

What if the work is already done without a by-law?

If an owner renovated in the past without formal approval, it is not too late to rectify the situation. A retrospective renovation by-law can be put in place to fix the paperwork, regularise the works, and protect the property’s title before it sparks a dispute or ruins a future sale.

Need a Compliant Renovation By-Law FAST?

At JS Mueller & Co Strata Lawyers, we specialise in robust, plain-English renovation and retrospective by-laws that clarify exactly who is responsible for what. We guarantee compliant by-laws tailored to the current 2026 laws fast!

CLICK HERE FOR A COMPLIANT RENOVATION BY-LAW FAST

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

Need Expert Strata Law Advice?

Whether you are navigating a complex dispute or looking to protect your scheme, our specialist NSW and Sydney strata lawyers are here to help. We provide clear, practical advice on all aspects of strata law, including by-laws, building defects, and levy collections. Call our team on 02 9562 1266 or email us here today.

In 2026, proactive levy recovery is the primary mechanism for protecting your scheme’s financial stability. Recent NSW reforms have introduced stricter notice requirements and mandatory payment plan protocols that demand 100% compliance. JS Mueller & Co Lawyers provides the specialist legal oversight required to ensure Owners Corporations recover arrears while remaining strictly compliant of the Strata Schemes Management Act.

The 2026 Reality: Low Bankruptcies’ vs. Growing Shortfalls

Recent data from SCA Australasia suggests a significant contradiction, while strata bankruptcies remain statistically low (approx. 0.022%*), funding shortfalls are reaching* critical levels.

For a strata committee or strata manager, the takeaway is clear: owners are fighting to keep their keys, but buildings are struggling to keep their funds. When an owner cannot pay, the financial weight doesn’t disappear – it shifts to the remaining owners. A scheme with a funding shortfall is a scheme at risk.

Why Cash Flow is Your Building’s Lifeblood

• For Committees: Cash flow is what keeps the lights on and property values high.
• For Strata Managers: It is the resource required to execute essential decisions.
• The “Savvy” Buyer: Due diligence is peaking. Sophisticated buyers and banks now scrutinize “ageing arrears” reports. High debt levels signal poor management and can directly devalue every lot in the scheme.

Stricter Compliance: The New Procedural Fairness Model

The legal landscape has shifted. If your scheme does not follow the new playbook to the letter, recovery efforts can be set aside or invalidated before they reach a courtroom.

The Cost of a Wait and See Approach

Delaying recovery action creates a “legal liability” for the owners corporation and an administrative nightmare for the strata manager:

1. Section 106 Obligations: The duty to repair common property is absolute. A lack of funds is not a legal defence.
2. Extended Liability: Owners now have 6 years (up from 2) to sue an owners corporation for damages resulting from neglected maintenance.

3. The Rising Bankruptcy Threshold: With industry calls to increase the bankruptcy threshold from $10,000 to $20,000, statutory recovery options are becoming more restricted. As a greater portion of arrears may soon fall below the limit required for insolvency proceedings, proactive, early-stage collection is now more critical than ever to protect your scheme’s cash flow.

The Muellers Advantage: Results-Driven Specialisation

At JS Mueller & Co strata Lawyers, we provide a no-nonsense service backed by 45+ years of strata expertise. We act as a partner to strata managers and an advocate for committee financial health.

 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can an Owners Corporation refuse a payment plan?

A scheme cannot pass a blanket resolution to refuse all plans. Each request must be considered on its merits. Refusals must be reasonable and provided in writing within 28 days.

Are legal costs always recoverable?

In most cases, yes, especially where the owners corporation has followed the correct statutory procedures (including the 30-day notice and payment plan offer) and costs have been ordered to be paid or the defaulting owner pays or agrees to pay the costs.  

Secure Your Scheme’s Financial Future

Don’t let a deficit compromise your building’s safety or long-term stability. Ensure your recovery process is compliant, persistent, and legally sound.

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

Get Specialist Levy Debt Recovery Advice Today

Contact Us

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

This week, our newsletter offers a fresh perspective, asking: can we learn from strata law around the world?

A South African Strata Lawyer with 14 years of experience. He’s observed that South African strata title shares many similarities with NSW and Australian strata laws in general. Fausto has recently moved to Australian shores, bringing his valuable insights.

“When the music changes, so does the dance.” – African Proverb

Strata law is no exception. It must evolve through reflection, adjustment, practicality and sometimes, through learning from others, some of whom may have learned from us.

For decades, South Africa studied and borrowed from the legislative frameworks of New South Wales and other Australian states in developing its sectional title (strata) laws. But in a turn of legal symmetry, is it now NSW that may have something to learn in return?

In the ongoing strata law reform locomotive in NSW, where much has been said about fairness, transparency and financial sustainability, one question seems to remain unresolved:

Do we need to protect owners who have already paid their share of a liability when the owners corporation is sued, judgment is granted against the owners corporation, and the levy debt remains unpaid by the owners corporation?

South Africa has answered that question. New South Wales has not.

An Unaddressed Exposure in NSW?

The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) (SSMA) permits proceedings to be brought by or against the owners corporation where lot owners are jointly liable. Section 254(3) then provides that any judgment is binding on the owners as though it were entered against them directly. Section 254(4) allows for proportional contribution by unit entitlement.

But what the SSMA does not do is protect a paying owner from further enforcement once they have already contributed their portion of the levy (e.g. paid a special levy that was raised to pay part of the contract or debt). There is no statutory barrier shielding those who have fulfilled their financial obligations from being rejoined in enforcement proceedings simply because the owners corporation, as a whole, cannot satisfy the judgment.

Smarter Strata Protection – Section 15 of the STSMA

By contrast, section 15 of South Africa’s Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 2011 (the South African Act) seems to strike a better balance between collective liability and individual fairness.

It provides that where a creditor obtains judgment against a body corporate, and that judgment remains unsatisfied, the creditor may seek to join individual owners as co-debtors. However, and crucially, section 15(1)(c) of the South African Act expressly protects owners who have already paid their share of the debt via levies or contributions.

Here it is:

“Any member of the body corporate who has paid the contributions due by him or her … in respect of the same levy debt prior to the judgment against the body corporate … may not be joined as a joint judgment debtor in respect of the judgment debt.”

The law is therefore not blind to who has already carried their portion of the load.

The Problem with NSW’s Silence

While section 254(4) of the SSMA provides that contributions must be shared in accordance with unit entitlement, it is procedural rather than protective. It does not deal with the consequences of debt enforcement or allow an owner to raise payment as a defence to further liability. Are some owners paying twice?

The result is a system in which owners who have paid a special levy or ordinary levy linked to a judgment debt are still exposed. In addition, creditors have no clear legislative route to target only defaulting owners, and owners corporations are left with a governance vacuum when attempting to ensure proportional accountability.

Reform Through Reception

The South African legislature took a comparative, evolutionary approach to sectional title reform, drawing inspiration from both the Australian and Singaporean models, while adapting to local risk profiles. Its solution in section 15 of the South African Act is elegant and functional. It reflects an understanding that financial responsibility in community schemes must also be individualised when the collective fails.

New South Wales, for all its strata reform activity, seems to have overlooked this risk. As owners corporations turn to borrowing for capital works, insurance premium shocks, and defect remediation, the absence of a legal protection for paying owners becomes not just an oversight, but a structural flaw.

New South Wales has an opportunity to import a focused, practical reform (or adapt it accordingly): the kind that acknowledges the reality of mixed compliance within owners corporations and shields the responsible from being dragged down by the delinquent.

In this instance, it is not shameful to borrow from the borrower. It is sound lawmaking. South Africa has danced this dance already. Should NSW consider stepping in time?

Are Unpaid Levies a Problem for Your Strata Scheme?

Effective levy collection is vital for all Owners Corporations financial health. Insights suggest, robust management of arrears can protect owners from future liabilities.

JS Mueller & Co Strata Lawyers specialises in expedient and impactful levy debt recovery. With 45+ years expertise in NSW strata law, we provide prompt and decisive solutions to secure your strata scheme’s financial stability.

PS. Did you also know that NSW levy collections are set for big legal changes, to practice and procedures in 2025 later this year? Here we share the top 9 key changes.

NEED HELP WITH LEVY DEBT COLLECTION CLICK HERE NOW!

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.

Is it Possible to Ban E-bikes and E-scooters?

There have been a recent spate of fires in Sydney apartment buildings caused by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.  Those fires have resulted in a number of strata buildings introducing by-laws to ban or regulate e-bikes and e-scooters.  But is it possible to ban e-bikes and e-scooters?

An owners corporation has a broad power to make by-laws to manage, control and administer the use of the lots and common property in its building.  This enables an owners corporation to make a by-law that stipulates what residents can and cannot do within their lots.

However, there are some restrictions on the by-law making power of an owners corporation.  In particular, a by-law cannot be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.  Any by-law that is, is unenforceable.

In 2020, the NSW Court of Appeal handed down a ruling providing guidance on the circumstances in which a by-law will be harsh, unconscionable or oppressive.  In that case, the Court said that if a by-law prohibits an activity that is capable of being carried out in a manner that does not have a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of the lots and common property by residents, then the by-law will be harsh, unconscionable and oppressive.

In that case, the Court concluded that a by-law banning pets in a strata building was harsh because it was possible for residents to keep some types of pets in the building without having a detrimental impact on the amenity of other residents: see Cooper v SP 58068 [2020] NSWCA 250.

This begs the question:

Can a By-law Prohibit the Charging of E-bikes and E-scooters in a Strata Building?

The answer to that question is most likely “no”.  This is because it is possible to charge e-bikes and e-scooters without creating a fire risk or otherwise having a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of the lots and common property by other residents.  Indeed, any by-law that bans e-bikes and e-scooters is not likely to be enforceable.

So what are the options for any owners corporation that wants to reduce the fire risk created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters?  There is nothing wrong with an owners corporation introducing a by-law that restricts the right of residents to charge e-bikes and scooters.  For example, a by-law could require residents to apply to and obtain the consent of the owners corporation to charge e-bikes and e-scooters in the building.

Further, a by-law could introduce rules that must be obeyed by residents to minimize the fire safety risk created by the charging of e-scooters and e-bikes.  For instance, a by-law could stipulate that residents need to ensure that their e-bikes and e-scooters (including the lithium batteries that power them and the chargers for them) comply with the applicable Australian standards, that residents periodically monitor their e-bikes and e-scooters whilst they are being charged and residents otherwise take all reasonable steps to minimize a fire safety risk created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.

Whilst it can be difficult to police by-laws that regulate the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters, doing so is not impossible and these by-laws at least give owners corporations the right to control the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters and to do something when residents disobey the by-law.

Can an E-bike and E-Scooter By-law Protect the Owners Corporation?

Further, these types of by-laws can provide the owners corporation with protection in the event that a resident disobeys the by-law and causes a fire when charging an e-bike or e-scooter.  For instance, a by-law could require the resident to indemnify the owners corporation against any property damage that is caused by such a fire and to cover the costs the owners corporation incurs repairing any damage caused by the fire.

Ultimately, the use of e-bikes and e-scooters is on the rise and this means that is now necessary for many owners corporations to grapple with the problem created by the charging of e-bikes and e-scooters.  Introducing an appropriately worded by-law is best practice and will provide an owners corporation with the greatest amount of protection to minimize the risk of a fire caused by the charging of an e-bike or e-scooter.

DO YOU NEED AN E-BIKE AND E-SCOOTER 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.

NSW Land Registry Services has announced changes to the procedure for bylaw registrations with PEXA which will impact strata managers. Here is an overview of the changes:

1. What are the changes to by-law registrations?

• All paper certificates of title will be cancelled
• Strata managers will no longer be able to register by-laws themselves
• All by-law registrations will need to be done through PEXA

 2. When will this take effect?

• On the 11th October 2021

3. How can we help you?

• JS Mueller & Co Lawyers is PEXA registered and approved to lodge electronic by-laws
• We were one of the first firms to register by-laws electronically
• We have over 18 months experience completing by-law registrations electronically
• We make the electronic by-law registration process easy!

If you would like assistance with electronic bylaw registrations with PEXA – click here.

For more information about electronic registration of by-laws visit ORG.

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

On the 9 April 2021, the NSW government announced a new statewide policy for Short Term Rental Accommodation (STRA).

The commencement of this policy has been deferred to 1 November 2021.

The new STRA laws will override all short-term accommodation planning laws previously in place throughout NSW, including those enacted by local councils. (until the policy takes effect the regulation of STRA in NSW will continue to be the responsibility of local councils and owners corporations).

The NSW Government has implemented:

• a new statewide regulatory framework for short-term rental accommodation (STRA)
• fire safety standards for STRA dwellings
• a government-run STRA Register
• the STRA Code of Conduct and exclusion register that took effect on 18 December 2020

For full details of the new policy and delays please read New Delayed NSW Short Term Rental Accommodation Policy

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

Must strata lot owners pay, as part of their levies, maintenance of the common property they do not use?

Are all strata owners responsible for paying for the maintenance of every part of the common property even if some owners cannot or do not use part of the common areas?

Is it possible for an owners corporation to raise a differential contribution that is levied on some but not all owners or is levied in shares that are not proportional to the unit entitlements of the lots?

Here are some typical examples where owners often query if they should pay for maintenance of these areas:

• A strata scheme that contains multiple stages – should they pay for stage 2 if they’re in stage 1?
• The owner of a ground floor lot who does not use a lift servicing the upper levels of the building
• The owner who does not use recreational facilities such as a swimming pool, gym or tennis court

Are these exceptions or are common areas in strata residential blocks treated as a whole?

Read this paper to find out the true position – Common Property Use and Differential Levies in Strata Blocks

For NSW strata legal or levy collection advice contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.

Recent research conducted by the University of NSW lists the top 15 common building defects in strata blocks.

To deal with problems caused by defective building work in new strata buildings, the NSW Government introduced a building bond scheme which commenced on 1 January 2018.

The bond scheme will apply to many new strata buildings that are built this year.

So, what do strata managers need to know?

To help you navigate the new laws we’ve prepared this paper Building Defects Bond Scheme that covers everything strata managers need to know.

For NSW strata building defect advice please contact us here or call 02 9562 1266, we’re happy to assist.