Current Page

[Aitch]

Our strata scheme has a majority of its units (about 75%) with attached ground level timber pergolas over courtyards and decks and which were part of the original development. These pergolas are clearly within the cubic space of the individual Lots as shown on the registered strata plan. Furthermore, the LPI Memorandum No AG600000 states that they are the responsibility of the Lot owner for that reason.

There is a controversial  move afoot to develop a By-Law transferring responsibility for the maintenance (paint, repair, replacement) of those pergolas to the owners corporation.  Surely this cannot be done with no financial consideration for the (about 25%) of owners without pergolas?

I think that such a By-Law to transfer responsibility would be OK but only if it was done on a cost recovery basis or on the other by having an amendment to the registered strata plan and which was commensurate with adjustments being made to the allocation of unit entitlements.

Ideas welcome.

Topic

[Sir Humphrey]

I can see an advantage in having all the pergolas maintained the same way at the same time by the OC, but the cost should then be levied back to the 75% of owners who have them. 

I think the 75% taking a decision that clearly benefitted themselves to the detriment of the 25% could be challenged as an ‘oppression of the minority’:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_oppression

We have carports that are used by the majority but not all owners and something like a NSW bylaw in effect that has the OC arrange for maintenance when required (eg. repainting them all) but the costs are then recouped from those owners that use those carports. 

Quote

[Aitch]

Thanks Peter C – will keep you posted

Well, it has not worked out that way. The EC proposed a By-Law which has the OC responsible for the funding and it won hands-down at an XGM.

Quote

[Author]

Replies