[MyAimIsTrue]

Up-date , albeit long overdue ! … 

The unpaid Levies were eventually paid some time during the next Quarter after the now new Owner bought the unit.

I do not know if new Owner paid or if they were paid by the Executor of the Deceased Estate , however I am posting this here so that people can know that unpaid levies prior to decease of an Owner did paid with no need for the Owners Corporation to pursue , even though a long time waiting.

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread !

[MyAimIsTrue]

 Hello Whale , 

I apologize for the delay in my replying here to thank you.

The LINK you posted to the particular page on the NSW Dept Fair Trading website has very much what we want known in our building , and now our Executive Committee will be using that information , so I thank you very much.

On your other point , I think that “some regulars” may not appreciate the subtlety in some of your comments , if they have even noticed … and it is quite obvious you have plenty of “sense” of another kind , the evidence being here in this thread and in others I have recently read which contain your advice. Of course those “regulars” may now wonder about my ability to assess such matters , but let us not worry about those “regulars” , however I do wonder why they bother being Regulars ?

[MyAimIsTrue]

Thankyou to everyone who contributed suggestions and experiences to this thread.

Our Executive Committee solved the problem by having our Strata Manager inform the Selling Agent that if the Sign was not removed by the end of the week that particular Office of a well-known Real Estate Agency would never again be given permission to install For Sale signs on our Common Property.

The result was the sign was removed on the last day before the end of that week.

It is interesting to note that the SAME Selling Agent Office had a Sign up in the next door building’s Common Property from a sale before the one in our property , and that sign is still there with the Sold sticker across it – now more than 2 weeks after they took ours down – so they really do not take Signs down unless something is threatened to their disadvantage ! 

[MyAimIsTrue]

Thankyou Whale, for explaining the 10 year requirements for LPG cylinders in NSW.

I could not find the particular details in the Legislation in the Link you posted  however I may not have recognized which heading there-in LPG is included as I found only AutoGas for refillable cylinders.

Regardless of what I may have missed, if the refiller of an LPG cylinder will not refill the cylinder after a 10 years’ date expiry , and will not refill a cylinder if no Date engraved on the cylinder , then we may not have a problem.

For this issue I agree with you that there would be no likely benefit to an OC trying to impose a By-Law more restrictive than the relevant NSW Gov. legislation.

On your “minds greater than mine” , I will take it that you have a sense of humour, as we both know that there are more than enough incidents of decrees being made by Governments and some less well educated or insufficiently advised Public Servants that are not in accord with a sufficient state of greatness of mind. 

[MyAimIsTrue]

Hello to kiwipaul , Boronia , Stevecro ,

Thankyou all for your replies – I am grateful.

Boronia stated:

” A properly maintained cylinder should have no problem coping with normal ambient temperatures if kept in a ventilated area, lots of cylinders can be found stored outside buildings. They should be fitted with a safety valve that will vent off surplus gas if the pressure does get too high, but again provided there is ventilation the gas will dissipate without causing a danger.”

– to which I reply that I can agree , but how do the other residents of the building know if the cylinder owners have “properly maintained cylinders” ?

Some people do not have knowledge about such matters , and some people are careless, thus sometimes we do not find out till after an accident has occurred.

I think it would may be worthwhile requiring for the annual Fire Safety Inspectors to inspect residents gas cylinders in a similar way that they currently inspect Fire Extinguishers , so that the owners can know if their cylinders are in good working condition etc …

This is easy to say, but likely would be difficult to implement given the problems currently in NSW with the Strata Law reform proposals, so it may have to be that interested Owners Corporations pass By-Laws about having gas cylinders inspected.

[MyAimIsTrue]

Thank you to everyone for your replies and comments.

 

Given what JimmyT has posted , as below:

JimmyT said

17 Election of executive committee
(1) At a meeting of an owners corporation at which its executive committee is to be elected, the chairperson must:
(a) announce the names of the candidates already nominated in
writing for election to the executive committee, and
(b) call for any oral nominations of candidates eligible for election to the executive committee.
(2) A written or oral nomination made for the purposes of such an election is ineffective if it is made by a person other than the nominee unless it is supported by the consent of the nominee given:
(a) in writing, if the nominee is not present at the meeting, or
(b) orally, if the nominee is present at the meeting.
(3) After the chairperson declares that nominations have closed, the owners corporation is to decide, in accordance with clause 2 (2) of Schedule 3 to the Act, the number of members of the executive committee.
(4) If the number of candidates: 
(a) is the same as, or fewer than, the number of members of the executive committee decided on—those candidates are to be
declared by the chairperson to be, and are taken to have been,
elected as the executive committee, or
(b) is greater than the number so decided on—a ballot is to be held.

 

–

Do I understand correctly that:

after the Nominations have been announced to the meeting 

the meeting can then vote to limit the number on the Executive Committee to 2 persons 

even if there has been only 3 Nominations  ?

 

That is despite there being 3 Office-bearer positions in an EC:

Chairperson ; Treasurer ; Secretary ,

and allowing that 1 person may hold 2 or all 3 of the Office-bearer positions , 

can Owners by majority Vote in a Strata Plan with more than 50 and less than 100 Residential units refuse to allow 3 members , or more up to the maximum of 9 , in the EC 

by voting to limit to 2 members ? 

 

 

[MyAimIsTrue]

Thank you for your reply.

I had better more specifically explain the circumstance, and then ask the specific question.

We had 3 members in our Executive Committee, then 1 left and vacated the premises before that last AGM , and was not replaced in the manner you described , and as is in the Legislation.

In the procedure you numbered for the AGM:

1. was not done at the last AGM – the meeting was not asked to decide how many EC members.

2. was not done – the Chair did not call for nominations.

No-one spoke , and it seemed to be presumed that the 2 remaining members of the EC were already nominated – perhaps they had in advance in writing , however their names were not stated to the meeting.

Perhaps no-one considered it mattered  because we knew them from the previous year.

Next , the Chair stated that the number of EC members for the coming year be set at 2  and asked that we vote – which everyone else did , however I was then a fairly new owner and unsure of the correct process , so I did not know what to do then.

Strangely , since the AGM a few other owners have said to me that we should have 3 EC members as had previously been the case , so I am puzzled why none spoke up at the meeting.

My specific questions are:

There are 3 Office-bearer positions in the Legislation for Executive committees:

Chairperson ; Treasurer ; Secretary ,

thus can any person at the AGM refuse to allow at least 3 eligible owners nominations be accepted to be EC members ?

And , regardless of whatever procedure the Chair of the meeting follows , such as possibly stating the number has been set at 2 , can it be legally voted by a majority of attending owners , including the few proxies , that the number remain at 2 after a 3rd eligible owner has stated he/she wants to nominate ?

I am not concerned that 1 EC member may hold 2 of the Office Bearer positions , I am only concerned that a 3rd eligible owner’s nomination may be not allowed as result of who-ever , whether Chair of the meeting or one or other of the current 2 EC members , stating to the meeting that the number of EC members has been set at 2.

There may be only a minority of owners present who want 3 members in the EC , thus not able to force a vote for the number to be changed if the Chair does not call for a number to be set.

[Author]

Replies