- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
An owner in our building of 38 lots has navigated his way on to the Executive Committee by way of vote gathering, including proxies.
Problem is, he has paving in the Common Property garden area next to his ground floor unit, illegally laid years ago before his time, which is in breach of the NSW Strata Titles Act and has been slated for removal in an ongoing Common Property refurbishment project.
This owner and new EC member is hell-bent on his ‘garden area’ not being bought into line and has become quite aggressive about it, writing insulting emails and being rude to those who try to point out the obvious calling us ‘ground floor haters’ and such.
I am not on the Executive Committee but believe he has a conflict of interests and should resign now his ‘agenda’ is known.
I see it as cut-and-dried that his pavers should go, no EC vote needed, as the alterations are clearly in breach of the NSW Strata Titles Act. I don’t believe the EC even needs to vote, they just should be removed at Owners Corporation expense as part of the ongoing project. The owner / EC member is acting in his own interests, not in the interests of the Owners Corporation.
Am I right? Could he also be asked to step down or something?
-
Replies
-
Technically and legally your views are probably correct. At the moment it appears the owner is getting his way by bluster and harvesting proxies. Because the paving was laid before his time I can understand his anger. He obviously thought he brought the paving when he purchased.
The owner should be allowed the opportunity to put his views and reasoning. I had a similar issue regarding parking and while technically and legally I was wrong after putting my views to the OC it was accepted that in practical terms ‘there was no nuisance’ nor was ‘anyone else denied the use of common property’.
My view is that to make any decision to overturn his ‘garden paving’ the OC needs to ensure certain processes are gone thru and are transparent. The widely used legal term is “due process” and the OC needs to make sure he is afforded this.
I don’t think he can be asked to step down. By its very nature all EC members have some interest in decisions. At very best a recommendation could be put to the OC that his votes not be counted on this issue (but that needs a vote too imo).
The EC or OC does need to vote on the removal of the paving. If it is so obvious that the paving has to go take it to a vote either an AGM or otherwise and explain the reasons.
Lobby other like minded owners prior to any vote, explain why the paving should go and how the legislation etc prohibits the paving from being there.