Good on you body corp, unit title act 2010

[chhj]

One big flaw of new act is privatization of common property, it saved body corp loads of maintenance funds. My first floor unit has unique access to front door, therefore all the maintenance of stair and handrail contributes to my own cost. Dont like the idea? Sure you can challenge, body corp can have a gesture move and solve it with free job quote plus committee proxy, not a surprise your fellows won't like to pay for your bill.

Moreover it's a hard lesson to learn to attend all bc annual meeting and be concentrating all the time. Why? One you will have to make yourself in the committee to have the say or you will be marked as ghost owner and have all rights erased. Two do not trust the minute of meeting it is a fraud itself. In recent general meeting my body discussed the quotes and colors for new painting project, but wait a minute, nobody voted on it. Two days later I've got a well prepared invoice with whooping price tag, 1.5x on top of my ordinary annual levy. Again you can try to play nice and email numerous time asking how and when; body corp can also choose not to reply. When bc is out of temper, it will start to threatening upcoming legal action and reluctantly answering your questions.

When was it passed? Last year while you did not attend.
Why do I not see it in last years minute? It is not in the minute but we have a quote...
Is handrail and leaky eaves common property? Nope.
So we are paying common share of the painting job just to have handrail painted when others having their entire exterior done? Sure, blame yourself for being on first floor, yours is brick but others are concrete blocks.

Coming to dealing with body corp, all the experience has been so tough. Watch out before you get trapped by anything like I am now, it is expensive to pay or to challenge. I could merely remind myself I'm the owner of my own property not slave of my body corp.

[John the builder]

The stairs are yours and part of your unit?

If you read the UTA properly even the common property costs associated with your neighbors is a cost to them.

Just because it is common property doesn't mean equal share applies?

It seems you have more that needs maintaining than them so hence the extra cost is this not reasonable?

You need to properly understand the boundaries and where common property is and is not.

[chhj]

You are right. I have more needs for the stair than anyone else so the obligation of maintaince lies more on myself. That way I name it privatizing common property.

But with this same object stair and its handrail in a different setting, say painting project, the result is I will pay equal as others but benefiting way less than other owners. For example each owner spend $1000 for painting, ground floor units will have all exterior blocks covered but first floor only stairs covered due to we use bricks. A project like this is painting property with no clear definition of conmon or private property because I don't own neighbor's concrete block although it is my unit's fundation. However benefit painting is not propertional to levy paid.

As a owner of minority interest I have been excluded in this situation and subsidize others. This happens a lot in body corporate and new UTA certainly helps bc in developing common property is also owner responsible concept.

To avoid the situation one eiter buy homogeneous setting units like all others or the biggest to gain advantage of it. Remembering special resolution is not working or your favor and rational neighbors totally enjoys a freeride.

[John the builder]

if you dont have the same area of wall that is being painted then the cost is less

At the end of the day there should be an apportionment based on benefit to the unit under s138 and 126 of UTA 2010

Those that need more money spent pay more.

The confusion comes from levy to create funds and the spending of that money on individual units that must be accounted for. The levy for painting should be done correctly in the first place? Utility interest is often not appropriate and fair? unless a fixed charge such as insurance or the units are all the same areas of wall.

[chhj]

It is no doubt by UTA that property of unique use by a owners is their own responsibility. Therefore I shall pay for stair's maintenance. But when come to painting, this responsibility has been somewhat mixed up with others, say exterior block of neighbor by utility interest. Just like a socialism scheme.

Point to count is this is not about fixing foundation or roof, painting delivers more value for some than others and it is not so fundamental to effect building's integrity.

Owners committee is an very important organization. Body corporate delegates all rights to committee members not owners. In my occasion not all owners are but the ones who attend every year's meeting. And this committee that formed on yearly basis has the exclusive right to decide coming project of your units. More precisely those who did not attend meeting have been deprived the right to vote on matters outlined on agenda as long as it is defined as ordinary resolution.

For example I did attend this but not last year's meeting. And when I questioned bc regarding how painting project is passed, bc refer it back to previous year's meeting.

The trap is even in previous meeting minute I could only have in for about say painting of garage doors but not mentioning other proposed painting. Information is selectively given to owners. So for me who try to save time for meeting ends up paying for it.

[John the builder]

you have the right to make a claim through the Tenancy Tribunal.

Document the issues and tote up the am mounts and see if it is worth risking a $850 fee that you get back if you are vindicated

[artemis]

CHHJ - there are dispute procedures in the Act. You - or the BC - can invoke the dispute procedure to clarify or determine proportions.

Suggest to begin with you put your concerns in writing to the BC chair, particularly about the lack of information in the minutes about the painting issue. You may well have a legitimate dispute if you are asked to pay for work that was not properly approved and for which you are asked to pay an unfair proportion. What is in the long term maintenance plan - it is mandatory? It could be that the painting is in there, and the plan was approved.

[John the builder]

- it is mandatory? It could be that the painting is in there, and the plan was approved.

even if funding was approved doesnt expenditure still have o be in accord with s126 (in relation to benefit?)

[John the builder]

chhj

why dont you do your own maintenance? That way there is noithing for the BC to do and they cant charge you. While BC is responsible for maintenance that only triggers them doing the work in your failure to react first.

[chhj]

I would like to do my own maintenance and accepted this unit's status quo at time of purchase. However I just owned this unit for three years and for last two years in a row the body corporate has came up with additional charges on top of annual levy for special projects under name of 'general business' which is easier to get through even without voting. One invoice is half of the annual levy fee and this year's painting is 1.5 times. I'd love bc to brought me to tribunal but they have decided to initiate a debt collection process against me. While not sure how debt collection would damage my credibility and more, I surrender.

[John the builder]

you can take the claim to Tenancy Tribunal $850 fee and refund if you win.....even if debt collectors if you dispute the levy they are bound to take you to TT.

If owners don't stand up to the BC then they have only themselves to blame?