@SMO said:
Can somebody explain how Section 162(3) and section 183B(1) are operated by CTTT?

Hey, if you can’t be bothered to cut and paste them for everyone to read, I can’t be bothered to answer.

@SMO said:

@JimmyT said:
Hey, if you can’t be bothered to cut and paste them for everyone to read, I can’t be bothered to answer.

Great answer Jimmy. That is the way to help strata owners.

Great response, SMO. You still haven’t pasted up the material so other people can see what you are talking about.  This website is about sharing information – not just answering individuals’ specific questions.

[Edited after further information received]

And, hey, it turns out I was looking at the wrong section 162 – see Scotty’s answer above.

The section you are referring to says this:

(3) Order may be made without application in certain circumstances
An Adjudicator may make an order under this section, without an application having been made for the order, but only if satisfied that the management structure of a strata scheme the subject of an application under this Chapter is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily.

Meanwhile 183 B (1)says this:

183B Orders for appointment of strata managing agent

(1) Order appointing strata managing agent to exercise functions of owners corporation

The Tribunal may, on its own motion, make an order appointing a person as a strata managing agent:

(a)  to exercise all the functions of an owners corporation, or

(b)  to exercise specified functions of an owners corporation, or

(c)  to exercise all the functions other than specified functions of an owners corporation.

And they both mean that either an adjudicator or the tribunal can decide, while examining the evidence relating to a completely different issue, that a strata scheme is so dysfunctional that it merits the appointment of a strata manager to take over the running of the scheme.

See the posts from ScotlandX and myself (above) for more details.  

Thanks Scotty.

I was looking at the wrong section which, at the risk of labouring the point, illustrates how citing a section of the Act then demanding an answer to a vague question is not helpful to anyone.

The section referred to actually says this:

(3) Order may be made without application in certain circumstances
An Adjudicator may make an order under this section, without an application having been made for the order, but only if satisfied that the management structure of a strata scheme the subject of an application under this Chapter is not functioning or is not functioning satisfactorily.

And to add to what Scotty said, what this means is that if an adjudicator, in assessing an application for something entirely different, realises that a strata scheme is seriously dysfunctional, they can use their own judgement to decide it merits the statutory appointment of a strata manager to sort things out.

Bearing in mind that the adjudicator can set different parameters for different situations – it could be for a specific period or limit their control to certain areas like finances or repair and maintenance – this is not necessarily a complete takeover of the running of the Owners Corp.  

That said, if the situation had reached such a critical stage as to demand a statutory appointment where one wasn’t requested, I reckon the adjudicator would just give a strata manager full control.

And on a side issue, this is something all Owners Corps and Executive Committees should be aware of.  Once a strata manager is appointed, especially one given full control of your scheme, you are gone.  At best you are just a group of owners with no powers beyond those given to individual owners under the Act.

You have no say in the running of your building (because you have shown yourself incapable of doing so) and, in all likelihood, all your bad decisions will come back to bite you on the bum.

And it’s even worse that it sounds.  If you have neglected to repair and maintain common property, the strata manager has a duty to do so and do so properly.  That means that cost is a secondary consideration to having the work done to the best professional standards – because the Strata Manager has a legal obligation to get it done properly (and no financial restraint).

So consider that the next time you put off repairs and consign your sinking fund assessment to the ‘too hard’ basket in a deluded attempt to keep levies low to ensure your re-election at the next agm.

The nicest, friendliest, most accommodating strata manager in the world still has a professional duty to perform and if that requires making decisions about levies and work required, they have a legal obligation to do whatever is required under the Act which supersedes any consideration about what the majority of owners want.

In most cases, the statutory strata manager just stops listening to the former members of a failed EC – why would they do otherwise – and gets on with the job.

My understanding of how a SM is appointed is that if you recieve a ruling that a SM is to be appointed the person (or EC or OC) that won the ruling has to provide the details of the SM. I would assume they are given a suitable time frame to find one.

Generally it would be an individual that has brought the case for a SM to be appointed to run the Strata because the OC and EC are dysfunctional and so it would be pointless expecting them to provide a SM.

@kiwipaul said:
My understanding of how a SM is appointed is that if you recieve a ruling that a SM is to be appointed the person (or EC or OC) that won the ruling has to provide the details of the SM. I would assume they are given a suitable time frame to find one.

KP, this is specifically about a case where neither side of a dispute has sought the appointment of an SM but the adjudicator has decided that is the best way to go.  In that kind of case, no SM would have been pre-selected because no such order was being sought. (See my last response below).