- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
The local council allows a maximum of one rubbish bin for every two units thus presumably occupants could make their own sharing arrangements or an EC could allocate unit no’s for bins. The Dept. of Fair Trading has advised on a couple of occasions however that if a “bin roster” where say one unit is tasked with taking bins out for a particular month then this would require a registered by-law but it would not apply to tenants. Presumably Owners could add this to the leasing contract.
In this particular case however one person refused as he was elderly, sick and didn’t use the bins at all while another was in a similar position except for being a major user. No option to pay a cleaner in lieu was offered. The question is whether a By-law can legally require people to work for the Owner’s Corp. – thus a disabled person for example who initially moved in where someone was paid to take all the bins out is faced with having to find someone willing to take bins out and back in for a month. If they can’t find a resident willing to do so this could be a very expensive proposition.
-
Replies
-
The Executive Committee
has put the by-law on social media on the AGM Notice – you can view it at http://www.facebook.com/coryulegardens.Anyone wanting a community page on the web should take note.
Comments and suggestions and debate welcome.
This is an interesting one Larry.
What do you think Jimmy?
I’ve just realised I had the word “should” instead of “shouldn’t” in my post (#16) on this (now edited).
I think putting details of proposed by-laws and other communications on a website that is open to the public (rather than password protected for owners or residents only) is nuts.
Potential purchasers and renters don’t need to see every twist and turn odf a discussion – just the result.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I’ll make two comments.
We have a password protected area but due to the incompetence of our web master (a resident) the public can find it and so our dirty laundry is there to be seen by all – he still hasn’t fixed the problem after about 2 years.Secondly, if the EC decided by resolution to put the material on the internet then that decision is a decision of the OC. If some maverick took it upon him/herself then that is another story.
Suggestion:
That you put a motion on the AGM agenda to make all decisions in relation to putting OC documents on the internet a restricted matter.That means a general meeting makes the decisions, not the EC. That way the owners can decide what it wants the public to see.
As a general comment it is a very unintelligent idea. For example, if the EC were considering legal advice re some dispute or whatever, posting it for all the world to see would mean that they would lose any privilege in relation to that advice.
Similarly I don’t think it would take long until someone claimed they were being defamed, because EC/OC papers mentioned that they may have breached a by-law.
That kind of thing should be provided to owners only.
Passed by Special Resolution – Restriction on re-publishing of Information. A by law was passed at the recent AGM restricting the republication of the scheme’s information, other than on a secure website maintained by the scheme’s strata managing agent. See earlier postings below and http://www.facebook.com/coryulegardens
@Whale said:
OK, so one sensible suggestion would be to enforce the standard By-Law that applies to all (NSW) Strata Plans depending upon their date of Registration, where the one for Plans Registered in 1996 states:Garbage disposal
An owner or occupier of a lot:
(a) must maintain within the lot, or on such part of the common property as may be authorised by the owners corporation, in clean and dry condition and adequately covered a receptacle for garbage, and
(b) must ensure that before refuse is placed in the receptacle it is securely wrapped or, in the case of tins or other containers, completely drained, and
(c) for the purpose of having the garbage collected, must place the receptacle within an area designated for that purpose by the owners corporation and at a time not more than 12 hours before the time at which garbage is normally collected, and
(d) when the garbage has been collected, must promptly return the receptacle to the lot or other area referred to in paragraph (a),
(e) must not place any thing in the receptacle of the owner or occupier of any other lot except with the permission of that owner or occupier, and
(f) must promptly remove any thing which the owner, occupier or garbage collector may have spilled from the receptacle and must take such action as may be necessary to clean the area within which that thing was spilled.
This By-Law requires residents to each “work” for their own benefit, and if they don’t comply, then the Executive Committee (E/C) could meet and determine to issue offenders with Notice to Comply with a By-Law, and whilst that could lead to Mediation that might just result in the polite and sensible solutions that you seek.
You could additionally talk to your Council’s Health Department about your issues, including about one bin/lot as the By-Law implies, and they could lean on the E/C, but be careful with this as the By-Law also places some obligations on the Owners Corporation and it would need to ensure that those were in place and fully compliant.
I hate to be devil’s adovcate, but such a by-law is probably valid.
Note that model by-law 11 (found in schedule 1 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996) is in the following terms:
“11 Cleaning windows and doors
An owner or occupier of a lot must keep clean all glass in windows and all doors on the boundary of the lot, including so much as is common property.”
As has been confirmed by a Court of Appeal decision, a model by-law cannot be held to be invalid.
It seems to me that the by-law quoted above is not dissimilar to this model by-law, and hence, it is unlikely to be invalid.
No-one has suggested that that by- law is invalid.
How do you repeal a by-law that you feel is unfair?
An Executive Committee member runs a laundry business from the 3 common laundries (200+ units). A by-law was passed in 2010 allowing the Executive Committee member (they were also a lot owner) to operate the business, following paying for renovations to the laundries by them, and they would not have to pay for electricity, water, cleaning, insurance. They do pay for the gas for the dryers.
The previous operator paid for electricity and water.
The Owners Corporation receives no rental or other income from the operations of the laundry business run by the Executive Committee member.
Proxies were used to pass the by-law at the AGM in 2010
The by-law allowed for a ‘review’ after 5 years and the Committee member has advised that they will exercise an ‘option’ to continue for another 5 years.
Although it has been suggested, the Executive Committee has not sought legal advice on this matter.
We, the owners, are now in a position where we are stuck with paying for electricity, water, cleaning, and insurance for another five years from our levies and cannot seek competitive tenders for the use of the common property laundries to operate a business.
Any suggestions for a motion that can be placed on the AGM Notice for the meeting that will be held in the next few months?
I think you might have a case to take to NCAT under section 158 (below). Firstly, though, I would approach the EC member and tell them that you feel they have given themselves an unfair advantage with this by-law but that you are prepared to accept a new by-law where they pay their fair share for electricity etc.
Howvever, if they refuse you will take them to NCAT and seek back-payment of all the money they should have been paying for the past few years.
This is what section 158 says:
158 Order with respect to by-laws conferring exclusive rights or privileges over common property
(1) An Adjudicator may make an order prescribing the making, amendment or repeal, in terms of the order, of a by-law if the Adjudicator finds:
(a) on application made by an owner, that the owners corporation has unreasonably refused to make a by-law of the kind referred to in section 51, or
(b) on application made by an owner or owners corporation, that an owner of a lot, or the lessor of a leasehold strata scheme, has unreasonably refused to consent to the terms of a proposed by-law of that kind, or to the proposed amendment or repeal of such a by-law, or
(c) on application made by any interested person, that the conditions of such a by-law relating to the maintenance or upkeep of any common property are unjust.
(2) In considering whether to make an order under this section, an Adjudicator must have regard to:
(a) the interests of all owners in the use and enjoyment of their lots and common property, and
(b) the rights and reasonable expectations of any owner deriving or anticipating a benefit under a by-law of the kind referred to in section 51.
(3) An Adjudicator must not determine an application referred to in subsection (1) (a) by an order prescribing the making of a by-law in terms to which the applicant or, in the case of a leasehold strata scheme, the lessor of the scheme is not prepared to consent.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), an Adjudicator may determine that an owner has unreasonably refused consent even though the owner already has the exclusive use or privileges that are the subject of the proposed by-law.
(5) An order under this section, when recorded under section 209, has effect as if its terms were a by-law (but subject to any relevant order of a superior court).
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Thank you.
I have written to the Executive Committee and asked that they discuss this with the Executive Committee member who operates the laundries business on common property.
I have asked that they discuss the change of by-law to include payment for electricity and water.Other owners have expressed the same sentiment on this matter.
Our Owners Corporation of over 200 owners is well run and I expect the Executive Committee will exercise their duty of care.
I will keep you informed as this matter progresses.
Another thing – if the original approval provided for review in 5 years, then unless it specifically provided otherwise then only the OC in an AGM can review it. The EC wouldn’t have the power.
It would be interesting to see what the by-law says.
And the EC member running the laundry should be excluded from any EC consideration of the matter as they have a material personal interest.