- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi all,
I would like your opinions on whether it is lawful for an EC to decide to do renovations, that leave us with a loss of amenity.
We are in NSW and are a number of coastal blocks totalling around 100 units.
In one block of 12 units there has been a number (maybe 25%) of units that have a recurring water/weather issue. To resolve the issue the EC have decided on a $350K + rebuild of part of the facade of the building.
So far so good – although the rebuild involves extensive demolish and rebuild resulting in considerable inconvenience to residents.
My question though arises out of a decision to replace an existing door onto the balcony from one bedroom with a fixed pane of glass. Apparently this will improve the success rate of weather proofing this part of the balcony. We have never had an issue with weather proofing either from this door or from the windows that (apparently) are the root cause of the other apartments water proofing woes, and we do not want the door replaced with a fixed window.
As we use this door regularly (for access to the balcony and also for sea breeze cooling) I wonder if we have the right to insist that the door is “replaced” with a door – otherwise we lose the amenity of balcony access and breeze.
Do I have any such right under NSW law, or are the EC able to change existing structures without regard to owners?
thanks for your advice
Terry
-
Replies
-
TC – to facilitate advice, it seems that your Executive Committee is coordinating the renovations, but can you please advise how the decision to undertake those was made? On the face of it, it seems that decision should have been by all Owners at a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation, possibly by a Special Resolution as the works involve changes to the Common Property, where you could have raised the issues now given in your post.
A little more background on that please.
I agree with Whale this is not a decision that the EC can make it needs to be agreed on by the owners and any change to the common property that affects you directly needs your approval. At the very least a Special Resolution is required for any changes to the common property (motion approved by 75% in favor).
@TC said:
Hi Whale,A mtg was called, but I was unable to attend (overseas)
Terry
A casual meeting is not enough to authorize this it must be a property constituted EGM (or AGM) with an agenda sent to all owners and the motion proposing this must specify it as a Special Resolution and then this motion must be passed by a vote of 75% of those voting in favor.
The minutes of this meeting must also have been distributed to all owners.
If any of these things did not happen you can challenge (or refuse to allow the change) until you are satisfied the decision has been taken according to the act.
So it comes down to whether the Meeting that you didn’t attend either personally or by granting your proxy, with instructions, to an Owner who was attending was a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation, and whether the Motion seeking to approve of the re-build was resolved as a Special Resolution, where the vote is assessed not on the basis of a simply majority (show of hands) but instead on the basis of the lot units of entitlement of those Owners in attendance, and where ≥75% of those need to vote in favour in order for the re-build proposal to pass.
If it was a General Meeting and the Motion was properly (i.e. specially) resolved, then I’m afraid that it’s not a case of any existing structures being changed without regard to Owners, just without regard to you because you didn’t attend.
If your balcony door doesn’t have a leakage problem, then your best (but not only) avenue would be in my opinion to offer to accept personal responsibility for the on-going maintenance and repair of it. That too will require yet another Motion to be specially resolved at the next General Meeting, and the subsequent registration of a Special By-Law (SBL) covering your proposal (if it’s accepted), so perhaps canvass the opinions of other Owners in the same situation as you with a view to both strengthening your case and sharing the cost of a single SBL covering all of the Lots involved.
As I said there are other avenues, but they’re more difficult and success is less likely in my opinion IF the Meeting was properly convened, the supporting documentation complete, and the Motion properly resolved.