- This topic has 9 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I am running another Flat Chat Live session as part of Strata Community Australia’s Owners Day in Sydney on November 2 and I need some curly questions to ask in our Q&A-style sessions (which have been doubled in length thanks to the success of last year’s event).
There will be representatives of strata managers, strata lawyers, building engineers, Fair Trading and the Tenants Union to answer your questions … so the trickier, the better. I am happy to ask the questions on your behalf but you are welcome to ask them yourself if you turn up on the day. Just send me your question to comment@flatchat.com.au marked “Flat Chat Live” and I’ll see what I can do.
To attend, click on the ‘Owners Day’ link above for more information. It costs $66 for the whole day, including morning coffee, lunch and afternoon tea. Where else are you going to get three meals in Sydney for under $70 – not to mention all the great information you’ll pick up from strata experts (and me).
Once again, click here for more information and to register for the day. This is the chance for all strata residents – owners and tenants – to find out what’s really going on behind the scenes in their buildings.
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.
-
Replies
-
Curly Q1
Which of these SSMA Schedule 3 “rights” takes precedence?
(1) The “right” of the EC to hold meetings in writing (by e-mail):
10 Voting in writing by members of executive committee
(1) A resolution is taken to have been validly passed even though the meeting at which the motion for the resolution was proposed to be submitted was not held if:
(a) notice was given in accordance with clause 6 of the intended meeting, and
(b) a copy of the motion for the resolution was served on each member of the executive committee, and
(c) the resolution was approved in writing by a majority of members of the executive committee.
(2) The “right” of owners to attend EC meetings:
14 Owners’ attendance at executive committee meetings
An owner or, where that person is a corporation, any company nominee of the corporation is entitled to attend a meeting of the executive committee but may not address the meeting unless authorised by resolution of the executive committee.
Curly Q2
An Owner submits a Motion in writing for the next GM, well in advance.
The Owner subsequently sells and by the next GM is no longer an Owner.
Is the OC still obliged to put the Motion on the Agenda?
@Kangaroo said:
Curly Q2An Owner submits a Motion in writing for the next GM, well in advance.
The Owner subsequently sells and by the next GM is no longer an Owner.
Is the OC still obliged to put the Motion on the Agenda?
No.
9 Restriction on moving motion or nominating candidate
(1) A person is not entitled to move a motion at a meeting or to nominate a candidate for election as a member of the executive committee unless the person is entitled to vote on the motion or at the election.
(2) Subclause (1) does not prevent the owner of a lot from moving a motion or nominating a candidate even if the lot is subject to a mortgage or charge.
10 Persons entitled to vote at general meetings
(1) Who has voting rights?
Each owner, and each person entitled to a priority vote, has voting rights that may be exercised at a general meeting of the owners corporation, but only if the owner or person is shown on the strata roll and, in the case of a corporation, the company nominee is shown on the strata roll.36 Requisition for motion to be included on agenda for general meeting
(1) Any person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation on a motion that does not require a unanimous resolution may, by notice in writing served on the secretary of the executive committee, require inclusion in the agenda of the next general meeting of the owners corporation of a motion set out in the notice and the secretary must comply with the notice.
As the owner has sold the owners name no longer appears on the strata roll, provided the s118 notice has been given, then the ex owner has no entitlement to vote. The Secretary is under no obligation to include the motion.
@Kangaroo said:
Curly Q1Which of these SSMA Schedule 3 “rights” takes precedence?
(1) The “right” of the EC to hold meetings in writing (by e-mail):
10 Voting in writing by members of executive committee
(1) A resolution is taken to have been validly passed even though the meeting at which the motion for the resolution was proposed to be submitted was not held if:
(a) notice was given in accordance with clause 6 of the intended meeting, and
(b) a copy of the motion for the resolution was served on each member of the executive committee, and
(c) the resolution was approved in writing by a majority of members of the executive committee.
(2) The “right” of owners to attend EC meetings:
14 Owners’ attendance at executive committee meetings
An owner or, where that person is a corporation, any company nominee of the corporation is entitled to attend a meeting of the executive committee but may not address the meeting unless authorised by resolution of the executive committee.
Both meetings have equla standing in that they are legitimate meetings if properly convened.
What is the difference between sitting silently at an EC meeting and the EC doing a paperwork meeting – in the first case you get a show.
The question of precedence is not relevant.At the end of the day the veto of sch 3 cl 11(2) applies to either meeting.
Why cannot owners of investment properties be held accountable for the action of their tennants when the Owners are advised of the problem yet do a
“not my problem guv”
Knowledgable tennants know their rights at CTTT but if they risked being evicted or entered on the bad tennant database they might start to comply with the bylaws but only the owner (or their rep can do this).
Question;
1. The SSMA is littered with penalty points for failure to comply but offenses by the OC against the Act require a party to take the OC to the Local Court.225 Proceedings for offences
Proceedings for an offence against this Act or the regulations may be dealt with summarily before the Local Court.
If the applicant is successful then an OC would get a fine of X penalty points.
Called transaction cost in some legal texts – if the transaction cost is too high then it will have significant impact on the use of the legal rules.
Given the cost and effort (transaction cost) to take an OC to court for small penalty for a failure under one of the sections of the Act that carries penalty points how are penalty points at a local court a functional deterrent ?
2. During the submission stage of the Strata Law reform numerous owners brought up the issue of unreasonable OCs in relation to pet approvals.
How did the Minister speech to the Parliament and proposed change address that issue, i.e how did it address the existing problem?3. In a recent release from a leading Sydney law firm it was said that s62 is one of the few sections of the Strata Act that actually means what it says.
What is the use of the bulk of the Strata legislation given it does not mean what it says, what caused the erosion in meaning and what protections will the new legislation have to see that it will still mean what it says in the future?4. Proxy farming was a major concern in the submission stage of strata reform. The issue was proxy farming, the solicitation of proxies. Will strata reform go too far and limit the number of proxies an owner can have or will it ,more rationally, limit the number of proxies a person can solicit?
(Can the Parliament make valid legislation that removes a persons right to appoint an agent (proxy) of their choice? At our last AGM one owner had more than 5% of proxies and every one of those proxies approached that owner, there was no farming or solicitation.)