The problem is a common property balcony which can be used for
BBQs etc which has a locked access door to prevent anyone other
than the unit owners or renters from using it, having one of the
unit owners keep getting the lock changed by a locksmith so that
only he has a key and so is the only one that can use that area.
This must be a common problem. How to prevent one unit owner
from getting a locksmith to lock everyone else out. Not feasible in
a big city to notify all the locksmiths that they aren't allowed to
change the lock without management permission.
The only thing I can think of is to have that notification engraved
on the door so that any locksmith can see that but but even then
there is nothing to stop the rogue unit owner from gluing a cover
plate over that. Surely there must be an elegant solution to
what must be a common problem.
Maybe a fancy electronic lock that needs to be unlocked using
a phone, but it's a block of 60 units and it might well be a big
ask to expect everyone to have a phone capable of unlocking it.
And presumably the best locksmiths can just bypass that anyway.
what's the likelihood or some non authorised person wanting to wander onto
someone's balcony and set up a BBQ there?
This doesn't equate with the bin example. There is something to be gained
by using someone else's bin
if you don't stick a sign on the entrance to your block saying "Balcony
unsecured please don't use it if you don't live here" how will the even know
a there is a balcony that can be used
b) that it is unsecured
As I said, that's a complete different situation.
Bins have to be left in an obviously accessible place so that the bin men
can collect them, so it's easy for someone to notice it and try to use it.
And the use is transitory, so they can do so without being spotted
entrances to communal balconies are usually in less obvious places and the
use is continuous, so it is likely that someone will spot them and eject
them half way through their BBQ
Because their flat or block of flats doesn’t have anywhere to do that.
Yes, they can certainly use public parks etc for that, but it is not very
surprising that some choose to use what they have no right to use.
It is obviously part of the block of flats that they have no right to use.
There are no bin men that collect them, the block of flats
pays a commercial operation to remove the rubbish.
They in fact had a group of individuals use the block car park
for a pissup in the very early hours of one weekend morning.
That assumes it is obvious that they have no legal right to use it.
With 60 flats, some of them being rented, it isnt that easy to keep
track of who has the right to use communal property and who
doesn’t. That’s why that balcony has key access with those who
have the right to use it getting a key that allows them to use it.
They are considering locking the rubbish area to prevent the
general public from dumping their rubbish in the bins too.
But with such a big block of flats, there is always a problem
with some who find it a nuisance to unlock doors all the
time and who just prop the lockable doors to communal
property so that the purpose of the lock is defeated.
If there is common property there must be an entity responsible for maintai
ning it and possibly paying taxes on it. The same entity responsible for pa
ying to have the trash removed. Under most laws, that entity has the author
ity to set rules, levy fines and be awarded court costs.
You should look into the concept of "adverse possession" under which someon
e who openly and adversely occupies a property for a stated period becomes
the legal owner.
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 12:27:56 PM UTC-4, 543dsa wrote:
Who is this "they" you are referring to? As I said in other posts,
a property like this where there are common elements in addition to
private units has to have the arrangement described in it's founding
documents. In the USA that would be the Master Deed and Bylaws.
Those define the common area elements and specify a board
that is elected from the unit owners that is responsible for maintaining
the common elements, setting rules and regulations for their use, etc.
Those documents gives that board the legal authority to enforce the bylaws,
regulations. Enforcement would include sending out letters warning of
violations, followed by holding a hearing if necessary and fining a unit
owner that refuses to comply. The above documents give the board the power
to lien the units too, if they refuse to pay the fines, just as they
can for not paying maintenance fees. Additionally,
if the owner has been told and continues, I'd bring in the local police
and tell them a unit owner is tampering with, defacing common property
and ask them to talk to them. Putting up a wireless security camera to
capture what goes on at the door is an option too.
This makes no sense. This can't be the first rodeo at a property like this
Boards typically have plenty of experience with people parking in someone
else's parking space, parking cars in spaces reserved for visitors, putting
trash out on wrong days, having pets that are not allowed, putting up signs
where they are not allowed, etc. This is just one more of those things and
you handle them all as I described above.
Where I used to live, there were several blocks of houses and a large
apartment block. There were a couple of brick enclosures with (unlocked)
doors on them, and these contained large bins with lids. For the first few
years, the instruction was that all residents of the development should put
their rubbish in those bins, and place their own recycling boxes in there.
Everything was emptied on the appropriate days - I'm not sure whether it was
by the council or a private contractor.
Then the rules changed. Now the communal bins were only for use by the
people in the apartment block, and everyone else was issued with various
bins - one for general waste, one for garden waste and the same boxes and
bags as before for cans, bottles and paper.
It quickly developed into a house owners versus apartment owners/tenants
row, because the rules had been changed and the house owners suddenly found
that they had to accommodate bins that they had not had to do before. It was
a particular problem for the few people who actually used their garages to
keep their cars in, because it was almost impossible to get to a bin when a
car was in the way.
The management committee directors put the lower price of the new collection
before the wishes of the house owners - or maybe they were told that they
had no choice in the matter and that it was a new policy of the collection
organisation that was non-negotiable.
I moved shortly after this row blew up so I don't know how it ended, but I
know there were accusations of house owners "illegally" putting rubbish in
the communal bins, and threats to delve through bins looking for letters etc
that were addressed to people who should have been using the bins as proof.
It was all VERY petty. I got a big cheer from al the other house owners when
I made that point at a residents' meeting: that the brick enclosures were
built and designated as communal to all residents, and now the rules were
being unilaterally imposed on us and they were setting one group of people
We were told in no uncertain terms that we were not allowed to keep our own
bins in the communal area and must put them out ourselves on the appropriate
day. If you were going away, your bin remained full unless you were prepared
to leave a garage key with your neighbours. The previous solution meant that
once the rubbish was in the communal bins, you didn't have to be in on bin
Some berk from the council even suggested that we keep our bins on our front
lawns if we weren't going to be in on bin day - which on an open-plan estate
(no fences or hedges between lawns and the communal paths) means that the
bins disfigure it for everyone - hence the builders providing the communal
So sometimes the problem isn't the general public, its your own neighbours
who are "the wrong sort of neighbour" (apartment versus house) ;-)
you do not seem to be getting it, one owner is just getting a locksmith
to change the complete lock so that he is the only one with a key.
the thing would be for the property management if they knew the person
doing it to charge said owner, tennant or whatever for the cost of
changing it back again and if they knew which locksmith did it, tell
them not to.
Why not? He's got to pay the rent, doesn't he? Who's the owner for
this property that does the changing back?
It's never been stated so far as to what the actual organization of the
ownership of these units is.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.