› Forums › Strata Committees › EC never meets › Current Page
This neighbour who had these improvements approved at the AGM via ordinary motion (??), it should have been a Special Resolution and SBL registered to confirm that the owner would be responsible for the ongoing repair and maintenance of these items.
I think it was an ordinary motion. It did have the standard “responsible for ongoing repair and maintenance” statement attached.
Check the bylaws you received when you purchased the property and see if their are any SBL listed.
No SBLs have ever been registered. One about air conditioners (I don’t have the wording) was approved the year the strata plan was registered, but the SBL was never registered so is irrelevant.
You say most screen doors are of differing designs implying they were installed individually by the owners rather than the OC (their should be SBL for these as well). Even if you paid for an EGM what is too say enough will turn up for a quorum or vote to approve your motions (some SM charge $1000 for this service) which would require 75% in favour if the change is to common property (screen on front door)
The strata management seems unconcerned by quorums and said it “is carried out by a simple paper voting process”. The front door is not on the boundary of the lot, so I’m not sure it is common property, but it certainly affects the common appearance of the building. 75% in favour has not been specified. And thankfully the cost quoted is only around $300.
Find out who is on the EC (listed in the AGM minutes) and try and get 50% to sign a request for an EC meeting to vote your items. I know the EC cannot authorize changes to the common property only the OC can with a 75% vote but I doubt this OC know that (especially if no SBL are registered). Failing to get a reasonable response from the OC, EC or SM advise them that unless you get a timeline for action within 7 days you will be going ahead with the improvements without approval due to it being a safety issue (burgulary risk).
Thanks, that is a path I may go down (and also why next time there are any suspicious activities, I will get the Police involved).
You cannot go to CTTT to argue your case because you don’t have a motion that has been voted down otherwise I would recommend this route. I don’t believe they can discriminate against you if others have been allowed free reign and if they took action against you at CTTT you would have plenty of evidence of your reasonableness and OC unreasonableness, as well as evidence of others having done what you are requesting.
I’m happy to go down the CTTT road if it becomes necessary as I believe I have strong grounds (my employer may feel differently if I need time off work!).