@Colosus01 said:
As you have recommended the issue is now going to an OC vote despite in our EC meeting the secretary having the majority votes via proxy but the chairman deciding this is BS according to her and causing havoc.
How does the secretary have the majority of votes by proxy at an EC meeting? Are you saying that the secretary has proxy votes from other EC members who could not attend, which were allowed by a majority vote at the EC? That is the only way proxies count at an EC meeting. Proxy votes from other owners who are not EC members do not count at EC meetings.
As kiwipaul and whale have advised the resident in question requires 75% of votes in favor by the OC to get what he wants but the strata manager has stated that is incorrect and its 75% of the votes received only. So in light of this which is actually correct?
Whale did not say that at all; he correctly wrote that the percentage required to pass a special resolution at a general meeting is more than 75 percent of those attending a General Meeting in person or by proxy and entitled to vote.
Let’s say you have a scheme of 100 lots. 60 of them either turn up at the meeting or send proxy votes. But 20 of those attending or having sent proxies are behind with their levies. That leaves only 40 entitled to vote and you would need only 31 of them to vote in favour to pass a special resolution.
By the way, all special resolution votes have to be “poll” votes and they are determined by unit entitlements, so the number of owners required to vote in favour could be greater or less than the simple head count, depending on the UEs they hold.
In a complex of 23 had assumed the resident required 18 votes in favour.
See above: It depends how many attend the meeting and are entitled to vote at it.
Lastly as this driveway services two townhouses but the expansion would only benefit one owner the SM has advised the information provided about registering a Special By-Law covering the Owner’s exclusive use of the common property for their driveway, or granting them a “licence” to use the common property is incorrect. Is it safe to say that i am being mislead on her comments?
It’s impossible to judge without knowing the details of how exactly the change to a shared driveway benefits only one owner. Perhaps it makes it easier for one owner to access but at the same time saves common property from being damaged. I would not consider that to be benefitting only one owner. On the other hand, if common property were being given over to provide parking for an owner, that would be a different matter entirely. Your strata manager seems to have got things right so far so I would be tempted to accept their opinion.