- This topic has 27 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
We have 10 apartments in our block and an EC of 5. I am Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of the Committee. Until now, none of the other committee members has taken much of an interest in the workings of the EC
Some time ago, one of the owners in our block replaced the carpet with a wooden floor. He did not ask EC approval before doing so. As a result, we introduced a by law which required EC permission before changing the type of flooring in any of the units
One of the owners has requested permission to lay a timber floor. They claim to have a medical certificate that this will help the asthma of one of their children. They have individually approached three of the members of the EC who have approved and signed the request.
The strata managers called for a postal vote but the meeting lapsed for lack of a quorum. I did not receive the notification so did not vote
They have now called a meeting to be held in the garage of one of the EC members. Of the members who approved the request:
One has said she will not attend
One is overseas
One is claiming that the EC has already decided
That leaves two men standing and both of us oppose the request. It seems that the EC meeting will lapse again for lack of a quorum
What can I do?
-
Replies
-
You can’t give proxies to anyone for a postal vote, you can only vote for, against or abstain/not vote. So if the strata manager was purporting to do that he was wrong. As I said there is effectively no Chair of a postal vote, because there is no “meeting”.
I know you are stuck in a bind here, but if the EC members are boycotting meetings then they should get off the EC. It is easy for me to say, reality is different, but I would go off my nut! Going back to what Jimmy said, you need to call a GM and get rid of them.
If you are Sec you are perfectly entitled to organise the vote yourself, such that the returns are sent to yourself. Then just inform the SM of the result for strata records.
Without re – reading every post to check whether it came up earlier the question arises as what this has to do with the EC. If there is currently a by -law requiring carpet or similar then a special resolution at a GM would be required wouldn’t it? If the owner concerned hasn’t requested this via the secretary then all that has happened is that people have talked and maybe written things down.
Someone in the block I reside in recently installed an air -con., partly on common property for which there are detailed minutes from the EC approving it. I checked with the Dept. of Fair Trading and was advised that this is of no consequence i.e. it has been installed with neither consideration or approval of the relevant body, the OC. The clear implication is that adults are presumed to have some basic understanding of the rules in the same way that if you got written approval from your local railway stationmaster to build a shack next to the rail line it would presumably have no standing in law; a reasonable person would expect some higher authority is required.
@Paul H said:
The bylaw requires that changes to the type of flooring in a unit must be approved by the EC.By the EC – not ‘EC members’ so, in this case, it has not been approved.
Such approval not to be unreasonably withheld etc
Well there’s a loophole big enough to dive a London bus through. Define unreasonable. However, there are other issues about flooring that are covered (or should be) by by-laws related to noise. I think once you have resolved this issue, you need to take a look at this by-law. The looser the better, in my book. I would have a by-law that simply said if anyone lays a floor that causes noise disturbance or allows noise to be transmitted from one lot to another lot, then it should be removed or carpeted over entirely, immediately and at the lot owner’s expense.
The bylaw does not specify the type of flooring required but if there is a change from the type of flooring installed when the bylaw was introduced, the the EC must approve, so the owner does not need OC approval, only EC.
And what if the EC approves a floor that turns out to be noisy?
I checked with the SM about the possibility that non attendance at two EC meetings was enough to get an owner thrown off the EC, and was told that there is no provision for this under the Act
Hmmm. Late night wanderings on the Interweb may have taken me to a website related to strata law in Victoria, Canada. It’s a bloody good idea though.
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.
Can I throw in a question here please. We have an apartment above us and the owner has laid timber flooring. They did get permission of the EC. She is very quiet and we are not experiencing any problems. What happens if she sells the property and with the next owner we suffer a lot of noise in our apartment from above. Who is responsible? The owner who laid the timber is now gone – is the new owner now responsible for the replacement of the timber should it be necessary?
The short answer is YES.
BUT … how easy that is depends upon whether any future noise annoyance is due to the flooring itself or the activities of the residents themselves, and the wording of your E/C’s consent including any conditions. Perhaps arrange to have a look at that consent.
Either way, (in NSW) you may have to seek the assistance of the Office of Fair Trading and the Consumer, Trader, and Tenancy Tribunal in order to require an Owner to return their Lot to its pre-renovation state; let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
@Paul H said:
The bylaw requires that changes to the type of flooring in a unit must be approved by the EC.It’s something of a technicality but while floor coverings may not be common property any devices e.g. nails which penetrate common property would be and as I understand the Act (but can’t quote section at present) power for approval for alterations CAN NOT be transferred to any other entity than the OC.