- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
We bought our unit just over a year ago. We live on the fifth floor of an 8 story building.
When we bought our unit, the elevator had key operated security. Apart from the Ground Floor, a key was required to have the elevator move to any of the floors.
During the course of the year, on two separate occasions, someone had vandalised the locks by filling the keyholes with superglue. We finally convinced the EC to spend $400 and install a stand-alone security camera in the lift to help prevent this from happening again.
After installing the camera in the lift, the EC decided that the camera is now sufficient security and can be used in place of the lock system. Consequently, they will be seeking to have the locks removed altogether at an upcoming EGM.
Can they do this?
My view is that unlike the key operated system, the security camera does not prevent unauthorised people from accessing any floor and that security in the building will be greatly compromised.
The price I paid for my home incorporated the building’s features – one of which was the elevator’s security system that was in place. Ideally, we would prefer the security of the locks to remain in the elevator. However, if the EC is successful in removing the locks (and in doing so, reducing the security in the building, thus taking away from the value of my home), would I have any grounds for compensation?
-
Replies
-
Manny – In so far as a decision of an Executive Committee (E/C) is taken to be one of the Owners Corporation (O/C) its decisions do have consequences, however in your example the E/C is not itself making the decision to remove the lift’s key-operated security but is rather putting that to the vote at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) where all Owners will decide one way or the other.
In normal circumstances I’d be inclined to let such a small change to the Common Property be put (on the Agenda) and be decided at the EGM by a simply majority vote, but due to the impacts that removal of the lift security would have, if you’re in NSW I recommend that you advise your E/C Secretary that under the provisions of Sect 65(A) of the Strata Schemes Management Act the Motion should be put as a Special Resolution.
The impacts of that are that in order for the Motion to then pass a minimum 75% of those Owners in attendance at the Meeting both personally and by proxy, as determined from the units of entitlement of the Lots, would need to vote in favour.
Clearly a collective decision in favour in accordance with the above would not give you or any other Owner grounds to seek compensation, but as with all democratic processes lobbying is permitted, so start getting any like-minded Owners on-side and to either attend the EGM or to give you their proxies; you only need a minimum 25% vote against and to thereby defeat the Motion.
I agree. The EC has quite properly developed a proposal based on its own observations and research and is now putting that proposal to a general meeting for a decision. That seems all completely above board.
I also agree the motion should be put as a special resolution for the reasons given by our aquatic colleague. Even if it were not clear from the Act, it would be a good idea for the EC to choose to put it as a special resolution and only act on the proposal if passed as a special resolution. That said, if the motion were to come very close to passing as a special resolution then that would show support from a very substantial majority and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to consider putting the motion again to a later meeting.
We had a proposal some years ago for which the Act was unclear about whether an special or ordinary resolution was required. Our managing agent advised the latter but an owner challenged it when it passed by a slim majority and legal advice suggested it could be done one way or the other way depending on some details. Since we would clearly have arguments if we did not get a special resolution, we took it back to a general meeting at which we got an increased majority but just short of a special resolution. (It is easy to run a scare campaign and convince a minority to oppose a special resolution.) We did not go ahead but later the Act changed to make it clear than an ordinary resolution was sufficient (due to our OC’s experience and my submission to the review). We put the proposal a third time and got an even larger majority in favour, easily enough for a special resolution, even though we only needed an ordinary resolution.