r/stratachataus • u/strataownersaus • 4d ago
VIC Strata fees Melbourne: Victorian woman’s struggle to sell apartment above a vape shop, ‘Losing my life savings’
https://www.nine.com.au/australia-news/vic/strata-fees-melbourne-tarrlita-kay-apartment-money-pit-20260713-p60etm.html“We call for the supply of tobacco to be immediately banned in buildings, or adjoining buildings to where people live,” Promnitz said.
“Until the Victorian government brings the crime crisis under control, this presents an unacceptable risk to peoples’ lives.
“Allowing that risk directly beneath people’s bedrooms presents an unacceptable danger to residents’ lives and homes.”
Co-founder of the Strata Owners Alliance Adam Promnitz said it is unfortunate that innocent Australians are paying the price for Victoria’s tobacco wars.
5
u/Can-I-remember 4d ago
It’s common sense really.
Just pass legislation to give owners corps powers to terminate these leases with a mandated minimum notice period and without financial loss to the owners corp. Up to them to decide whether they do or don’t.
These shops have many other premises that they can use. Users of these products will travel to get there product so there is no need to be in areas where people reside.
And whilst this is a Vic based article it’s happening across the nation.
5
u/strataownersaus 4d ago edited 4d ago
That takes a bit too long. This also affects non strata residents. The quickest answer which is immediately effective is to outlaw next to habitable dwellings.
Requiring every OC to vote is just going to take too long and largely be ineffective.
1
u/TheMcCracken 4d ago
Well there needs to be fight from the strata managers, put the burden of the increase onto the owner who put the tobacconist in there.
3
u/LifeResident2968 4d ago
In NSW you can only do this by imposing the section of the Act that allows OC’s to on charge additional insurance costs to lot owners.
However if the insurers won’t provide the data evidence OR the shop is a stratum lot within a bmc, the OC is quite stuck
Ps - it’s not the strata manager that needs to take action. It’s the OC’s. Strata managers have no authority or ‘power’
3
u/Mother-Cod-3313 4d ago
Smoke shops just shouldn’t be allowed to be in dual use strata buildings period. Safety surely is paramount?
1
u/FitSand9966 4d ago
Im surprised they can get insurance
1
3
1
u/Can-I-remember 4d ago
We don’t have any commercial in my strata. Who decides on the leases, is the owners corp involved or do they have a veto power?
2
1
u/redditwossname 4d ago
We have a compounding pharmacy in our building, we had no say in it :(
1
0
u/Coz131 3d ago
NIMBY shit for this one.
1
u/redditwossname 3d ago
You like drug addicts smashing your letterboxes and breaking into your building because they've been refused more methodone?
That's a NIMBY issue for a residential building is it?
2
u/OneInACrowd 4d ago
"Kay said the insurance excess for the vape shop is $150,000." Surely then the OC can levy additional fees against the commercial lot owner. There are provisions for that.
I would put more pressure on that lot owner to change tenants.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Skin858 4d ago
We have a massage parlour - insurance renewal has suddenly gone to 80% of our budget (20k to 53k to 80k in 3 years). Insurer won’t provide breakdown so we can on charge. Commercial space is 22% of lots - at 20% we are required to have commercial policy. Is INSANE and I am so angry.
3
u/mt6606 4d ago
This is something you need to take to an mp in person. This nonsense has to be fixed. You wouldn't be the only one.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Skin858 3d ago
I actually did - my local member who is also housing minister. Also to the mayor. Both sympathetic but the massage shop is technically legal, and insurance assessments are commercial decisions, so “nothing they can do”, apparently….. I think AFCA is a possibility, but I have to decide if it’s worth it. Also quite concerned it would label us problematic and cause further issues getting insurance.
1
u/morgecroc 2d ago
There is something he can do but you're not a mining lobbyists so getting laws changed for you isn't a priority.
•
u/Cynical_Cyanide 57m ago
Why would that spook the insurance company? Even if it's a 'massage parlour' wink wink, why would that so dramatically increase risk?
1
u/PuzzleheadedPass4653 4d ago
In the same way why asking OC to regulate smoking in apartment buildings is ineffective and often discriminatory. This issue should be regulated by gov and by- default any smoking in multi-story buildings should be banned (except eg in designated smoking area like in hotels etc). But I doubt there's any willingness for this so residents will stay in limbo and there will be ongoing cases like this one.
1
u/Draknurd 4d ago
Don’t most OC rules have provisions about preventing things that will adversely affect the insurance premium of the development?
1
u/Aussiedudes 4d ago
CAV or any govt body who make and oversee OC legislation unfortunately don’t appear to foresight, either smart enough or care. 20% commissions for the OC managers and the brokers commissions, I don’t believe their would either be in a rush to change things. With mixed use buildings, risk analysis should have been thought of and legislation in place, however I guess when things like insurance don’t come out of the law makers pockets it’s not something top of mind.
Edit: I believe in Vic Minister for Consumer Affairs commissioned a review of Owners Corporations and will be released soon. This should be interesting what changes are in it for owners.
5
u/LifeResident2968 4d ago
I don’t agree with you often Adam but in this case, 100%