[Billen Ben]

JimmyT said:

If your strata manager isn't in ISTM, that's a very good reason to get rid of them.

I don't know how much help Fair Trading will be with someone who is just ineffective rather than professionally incompetent.

 

Jimmy is absolutely right, if your agent is not a Member of the ISTM then seriously look for one who is. The ISTM have standards and if Members can't cut it then they might find they are not Members for too long.

Agents have poor reputation with some Members at CTTT and one goal of the ISTM is to bring confidence to the consumer in the product (i.e. the agent).

Fair Trading are not much help. There are numerous cases where agents are not very good (to put it politely) and Fair Trading are very reluctant to revoke a license unless there is something seriously negligent or corrupt going on. Even CTTT has many cases of where OC's try to change agents but Members decline to make orders even though the agents compliance level is not much better than a bunch of volunteers operating a non-compliance culture to keep the levy low.

In the cases above, rchin77 and explorer, the owners need to look at the scope of the agents appointment and remember that the agent is generally subordinate to the EC who are subordinate to the OC at a General Meeting. Often owners feel because there is an agent he/she is the king-pin, this is rarely the case.

If you want something done then it will generally need EC approval or OC approval at a General Meeting depending on the detail.

The agent just gets the instructions from the EC or OC; the agent rarely call the shots. If the EC or OC is being unreasonable in withholding an approval or neglecting a duty then there is the dispute resolution mechanism in the Act.

Do not forget who controls the Owners Corporation; it is the owners, not the agent. If you have an EC then that is where most approvals come from otherwise take motions to a General Meeting if the matters are restricted to such meetings. Permission from the agent is often not needed; always check the management agreement and see what duties the agent has been given.

[Billen Ben]

77   Effect of use of lot on insurance premiums

If the use to which a lot is put causes an insurance premium for the strata scheme to be greater than it would be if it were not put to that use, so much of a contribution payable by the owner of the lot as is attributable to insurance premiums may, with the consent of the owner, be increased to reflect the extra amount of premium.

Note. An owners corporation may apply for an order under section 149 (2) for a variation of contributions if an owner unreasonably refuses consent under this subsection.

s77 seems to be about a change in use of a lot; for example changing from a dress shop to a dry cleaner is the example found in Ilkins' text. 

s77 requires the consent of those who have caused the premium increase but s149(2) is helpful if the owner refuses.

Contributions are levied based on unit entitlement even if it is a full commercial policy and yours is a residential lot.

Do you know what the difference in contribution would be? i.e. have you got an estimate from an insurer for the residential part that shows the residents are seemingly paying extra under a commercial policy.
You could ask the current insurer to specify how much of the current policy cost is attributable to the residential part of the SP.

Can you find an insurer who will give you a quote that has a residential component and a commercial component so you can get a feel for how the full commercial policy differs from a combined residential/commercial policy?

You may be able to get an order to more fairly distribute the insurance cost if it can be shown the residents are paying “extra” to cover a policy that is more specific to the commercial interests if you can show the residents are carrying the commercial interests insurance costs to some degree.

Shop around and see what other insurers are prepared to offer you and discover if you are paying too much because it is a commercial policy. If you find an offer for a policy that better suits the residential interests of the SP then you can take motions to an AGM to change insurers.

If you can get a policy quote with the two components (residential and commercial) then you have a good case for the residents pay the residential part and the commercial pay the commercial part – that would seems fair.

[Billen Ben]

JimmyT said:

Just one more thing – Horsley is an optional (but very sound) set of rules to follow, isn't it?

Could an OC pass a by-law saying that all meetings have to be conducted by Horsley's rules (except where they conflict with Strata Law).

Would sound like a big step forward for a lot of dysfunctional ECs and OCs to me … but then, how do you get them to pass the by-law?.

A lot of Horsley relates to procedures developed through common law and Horsley quotes the cases so it is very solid. Horsley notes where there are contradicting cases and the law remains unclear but Horsley always says to be aware of statutory requirements because statute can negate some common law aspects of a meeting. So an understanding of the strata requirements is important to have before reading Horsley (SSMA Sch 2 and 3 particularly)

Horsley has a lot of depth; to ask Joe average to read it, comprehend it and action it is a big ask.

A Horsley meeting would be civilized meeting which is not a wide spread trait of strata meetings so it would mean some significant change for a lot of people and people do not like radical change.
We have a code of conduct for meetings but those who push it hardest are those who breach it most. The AGM used to have motion  “That the meeting adopts the code of conduct for the meeting … blah blah blah.
The motion has disappeared in recent years because the AGM still misbehaved after passing the motion.

I think the idea is great but unrealistic. For example if my SP had such a by-law it would be virtually unenforceable on some people and enforced at the drop of hat on others. We have huge issues with the selective enforcement of by-laws.

If an OC feels they could pass and enforce such a by-law then they would, no doubt, benefit from it. Any such by-law would involve procedures and rules and would be quite an extensive by-law so it would be very difficult to draft and could take years of amending to refine.

If the Chair (and his/her assistants) of a meeting was familiar with Horsley then it would be a great start especially if the Chair maintained control of the meeting and set the basic “rules” at the beginning of the meeting. Perhaps a simple cover page on the AGM agenda outlining how the meeting will be conducted (according to Horsley) would be good.
Just having a copy at meetings so it could be refered to would be a start.

Horsley is a real eye opener given the typical strata meeting is stereotyped as a hostile environment. Educating people in the ways of Horsley would have the same problems as educating people in the ways of the Act.

Any SP who can get just one owner to read it would benefit – as long as other owners were prepared to listen. It is in most libraries.

I use it as a reference when the Act is silent and i need something substantial for CTTT applications regarding failures in meetings. Adjudicators and Member may not be bound by other CTTT decisions but good solid case law makes them think twice before having a brain explosion.

[Billen Ben]

I would just clarify the following;

According to Horsley owners would have the right to propose amendments, at the meeting, within the scope of the principle that the amendment not alter the nature of the motion. If someone proposed an amendment and the Chair did not allow the meeting to pass or fail the amendment then from what appears in Horsley it is likely the decision on the substantive motion would be in jeopardy.

The Chair has a great deal of power and discretion at an AGM. Generally speaking; if the Chair feels an amendment breaches the “nature of the motion” principle then the Chair can refuse to put the amenedment motion to the meeting but it appears, from the Horsley text, that the Chair is obliged to put amendments to the meeting that do not suffer from such a defect. If there is contention over whether or not an amendment crosses the line it places the Chair in a difficult position.

In the example given by Jimmy about a by-law and no pets. The Chair is placed in a position where the Chair can allow or disallow the amendment and the  Chair could decline to put the substantive motion to the meeting.

It is a tough gig being a Chair at an AGM when things get a little grey.

[Billen Ben]

It seems the original motion has ambiguity; does it only apply to new pets or do current pets have to go. The amendment then clarifies this a little but anyone not at the meeting may have instructed a proxy under the idea the motion meant new and existing.
Horsley talks about the wording of motions and good charateristics for a motion. Ambiguity is not a desirable characteristic. The original motion would be potentially contestable because it has ambiguity. The amendment removes the ambiguity but creates a context that some owners may considers alters one interpretation of the original motion to such an extent it undermines the nature of the original motion i.e owners who thought the original meant existing pets also go are now faced with a somewhat different motion.
In the case above it may be wise to hold a later EGM with a well worded motion and rule the matter before the AGM out of order due to the ambiguity the amendment revealed.

According to Horsley owners would have the right to propose amendments, at the meeting, within the scope of the principle that the amendment not alter the nature of the motion. If someone proposed an amendment and the Chair did not allow the meeting to pass or fail the amendment then from what appears in Horsley it is likely the decision on the substantive motion would be in jeopardy.

The nice thing about Horsley is that it quotes case after case to back the commentary.

Horsley’s Meetings: Procedure, Law and Practice by A D Lang
(Endorsed by the Chartered Institute of Company Secretaries in Australia)
ISBN 0-409-30915-X

 

 

[Billen Ben]

Sorry about the quoting of clause 23 as it does refer to resolutions not proposed motions. I was a little rushed.

Horsley says the following:
Amendments must not alter the motions nature but if the amended resolution would not fall within the notice it will be invalid (Picturesque Atlas & Publishing Co 1892 13 NSW eq 77)

BUT it also quotes Moorgate Mercantile Holdings Ltd 1980, a more recent English case; not binding in Australia;
“the substance of a special resolution must be identical to that of which notice has been given”. Moorgate allows only for grammatical errors or clerical errors to be corrected.

Horsley states the law at present in Australia regarding the amendment of special resolution motions is confused.

What is clear is that if a motion is amended to the point it becomes a new motion, i.e. fails to preserve the nature of the original motion, then it is invalid, that is a general principle. That general principle comes from amendments made by a majority vote and regards motions requiring a majority vote.
I hope that clears up things a bit ..

[Billen Ben]

When ammending a special resolution motion the rules are as follows;

Sch 2 SSMA clause 23   
Amendment or revocation of unanimous or special resolutions

A unanimous resolution or special resolution of an owners corporation may not be amended or revoked except by a subsequent unanimous resolution or special resolution, as the case may be.

However, a unanimous resolution of an owners corporation dealing with common property may be amended by a special resolution.

So it seems you need a SR motion to amend a SR motion.

As for voting with non- discretionary proxies; if non-discretionary proxies mean that the principals have stated the manner in which the proxy is to vote then according to Horsley's Meetings, a fine text regarding meetings, a proxy who casts a vote contrary to the wishes of the principal is still a valid vote as far as the meeting is concerned and it becomes a matter between the principal and proxy.

In my opinion; If there are non discretionary proxies and a vote is taken on an amendment then the proxy either has instructions or not; if not then it could be open to the proxy to cast the proxy vote on the amendment according to the proxies better judgement. Commonsense would dictate that vote would be cast so as to still be able to cast the vote of the principal on the substantive motion, i.e. preserve the original motion OR otherwise commonsense would say abstain in the absence of instruction. If the proxy is under strict instruction on how to vote to a particular motion then the proxy should not be imposing thier own ideas on the manner in which the principals' vote is cast.

If an amendment passes and the proxy has no instruction regarding the amended substantive motion it would be best to abstain although as stated above; the proxy vote still counts even if it later turns out to be contrary to the wishes of the principal.

Hope this helps.

[Billen Ben]

FROM :https://www.nswfb.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=191

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP & A Reg.), owners of buildings have a legal obligation to supply the Commissioner of the NSW Fire Brigades with a copy of any Fire Safety Certificate (PDF, 980KB) and Fire Safety Statement (PDF, 991KB) listing the fire safety measures applicable to their building.

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Statement are to be supplied as soon as practicable after being issued to the owner.

The Fire Safety Certificate may be either Final or Interim, both of which are to be supplied as applicable.

The Fire Safety Statement may be either Annual or Supplementary, both of which are to be supplied as applicable.

Together with copies of certificates and statements, owners must also supply the Commissioner with a copy of the current Fire Safety Schedule issued to the owner by the consent authority specifying the fire safety measures that should be implemented in the building premises.

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Statement together with a copy of the current fire safety schedule must be prominently displayed in the building.

The owner of a building, to which an essential fire safety measure is applicable by virtue of a fire safety schedule, must not fail to maintain each essential fire safety measure in the building premises.

The Commissioner (NSW Fire Brigades) has an obligation under the E P & A Reg. to accept copies of completed Certificates and Statements together with copies of current Fire Safety Schedules.

For more information contact the Structural Fire Safety Unit on
02 9742 7400

[Billen Ben]

If the EC failed to elect a Secretary then there is no one to convene the next EC meeting. Enter s19 of the SSMA.

19   What happens if chairperson, secretary and treasurer are not appointed?

(1)  An Adjudicator may, on application, make an order appointing a person nominated by the applicant (and who has consented to that nomination) to convene a meeting of the executive committee of the owners corporation if there is not a chairperson, secretary and treasurer of the executive committee of the owners corporation after the first meeting of the executive committee has been held.

If the EC has had a meeting and no Secretary or Office Bearers exist then you can get another meeting up and running by using s19 and at that meeting the EC should not be allow to close the meeting until office bearers are elected. If it takes all day then so be it.

It is important these positions are filled and if there are an odd number of EC members then it should not be hard to eventually elect people. If it means vote after vote after vote to eventually fill the positions then emphasize to the EC that if it cannot function at that level then it does not bode well for the rest of the year.

[Billen Ben]

JimmyT said:

This raises another question – the meeting may have  been quorate with proxies included but what about non-financial members?  I know they can't vote at General Meetings but what about the EC? 

Wouldn't it be weird if an non-financial owner was not allowed to vote as an EC member when a non-owner who is on the EC does not have to worry about such matters.

I can't recall anything specific in the Act about the need for an EC member to be remain financial to vote on matters at EC meetings.
We have had, over time, EC's made up of owners, both financial and non financial, with a smooth blend of non owners thrown into the mix.

[Billen Ben]

There is a lot to not like about CTTT. One problem is best understood from the perspective of someone versed in a science.

In science the law is the law and the law does not get set aside based on discretion, equity, amenity or unfortunate circumstances. If the data is correct and the law is compromised then the law needs changing. The laws of science are meant to be universal; not situational.

The Strata Act gets shelved by CTTT and bodies such as the Supreme Court just so the organization can be seen to be “equitable”. I have read one Supreme Court strata case where there was a caretaker involved in a management role without authority, the Judge even stated that the caretaker was involved in unauthorized management but the Judge then drew some unspecified line in the sand between significant and insignificant management roles.

The decision involved the idea that the management role was insignificant – the Strata Act was being broken, that was not disputed by the Judge, but the degree of breach made it OK.

That is rubbish from the perspective of laws being laws. There is no such thing as a small breach in science; a small breach is huge because it compromises what is supposed to be a universal law.
In the Supreme Court matter I mention the Judge after acknowledging the breach should not have made the breach OK by creating some wishy-washy undefined line; the Judge should have resolved the matter by having the penalty reflect the degree of breach instead of compromising the Act.

Inconsistency in orders and rulings makes the law meaningless waffle, leads to the erosion of public trust in the law, leads to contempt for the overseeing bodies and in the case of strata matters it reduces consumer confidence in the worth of the concept of strata property title.

I am not saying everything is black and white but i could not disagree that too many times a simple black and white matter gets greyed because of discretion, equity, amenity or even idiocy.

[Billen Ben]

T said:

Finally, the CTTT don't have the resources to visit your building. They don't even have the resources to read an application more that are more than a few pages long. This is why oral evidence in a hearing is so useful.

We had a case in 2008 where CTTT flew a Snr Member 800km to hear the case, the Member then traveled by car 35km from the OFT building to the SP to make an inspection before returning to the OFT building to hear the case. The Member ultimately made a decision that seemed to be in contrast to 5 previous orders on the matter but the effort is the point.

In contrast to that the same SP has recently had two rather trivial matters and both times the matters were dealt with by phone from Sydney. That the cases were not dealt with by one of our well qualified, and not too busy, local Members was quite unusual.

The last time i was in Sydney I dropped in to CTTT HQ and sat in on a case being conducted by a Snr. Member. The applicant spoke for about 15 minutes and the whole time the Member just flicked through paperwork without even looking at the applicant. I believe the paperwork was for another matter. It was very cold from a CTTT Snr Member.
Oral evidence is not worth much if the Member is too busy looking over other more important matters.

[Billen Ben]

I can accept the arguement of Jeremy @ Newcastle but it would mean the number of candidates, if less than 9, then determines the maximum number of EC members in the determining motion of clause 17(3).

BUT recall that 17(3) places no restriction on the number of EC members. If “ghost vacancies” were meant to be prohibited it should have been picked up in 17(3). Perhaps it was an oversight by the legislators.

Clause 4 of Sch 3 is generally about filling a vacated position, not a ghost position. Cl 4(2) of Sch 3 is not necessarily restricted to the circumstances of cl 4(1) but I can see Jeremey arguing that 4(2) is clear the new member serves for the rest of the term of his/her predecessor and a ghost is not a real predecessor therefore there is no clear mechanism to full the ghost vacancy. I would accept that.

I can follow Jeremy's line of thought and it is a good case. I would agree that until the Supreme Court, or the Court of Appeal, make a statement the matter will remain an unresolved debate.

Until then the best practice would be to respect the wishes of the AGM as long as it is not something that obviously breaks the Act or Regs and i don't feel there is an obvious breach; but Jeremy is on to something.

[Billen Ben]

barflairer said:
I'm in need of some desperate help.
I own a unit in a large apartment complex and about 6 months ago, 5 home owners lead to what I can only describe as a coup to get themselves elected on the executive committee and get rid of our existing strata company.

There is a lot in your post so I will try to work through it;
Coups are common in strata and strata is set up so as to accommodate such things. Strata living can become a numbers game and if one group has the numbers then “coups” occur. 

These home owners visited and wrote to as many home owners as possible without notifying the existing strata company and requested home owners to sign a proxy to fire the existing strata company. They complained about the existing strata company and made up a number of false problems that they accused the strata company of neglecting. What this group of home owners failed to tell each home owner while coercing them to vote in their favour was:

1. The strata company they were replacing our existing strata company was a self employed person that is a personal friend to one of home owners.

2. This self employed person has no prior experience to managing a strata plan and had registered his company and got his strata licence months prior to securing the management of our strata plan.

People behind coups can lobby as hard as they like but misleading and misrepresenting is not a good look for them if it is discovered they have sunk to such lows to get their way.  If you can show the other owners they have been “had” then next AGM can undo what has been done.
Without more information there may be an issue relating to clause 2 of Sch 6 of the Property Stock and Business Agent Regs 2009; was the proposed agent instructed by the OC not to disclose, was there disclosure, was there even a need; more information required.

At the AGM these home owners elected themselves and voted each other into the executive committee. Since then, along with the friendship of the strata manager, they have been incredibly corrupt. They have assigned $5000 to rectify external building issues of one committee members unit and spent a large amount of money doing up the garden area outside another committee member. Our maintenance costs have also sky rocketed since they changed all the maintenance contractors and the new cleaning person told me that his boss is good friends with the chair of the executive committee.

The question for me is did all this happen compliments of duly passed budgets,resolutions and a proper election. If these people are properly elected, passing appropriate resolutions to undertake these actions and they are spending money duly budgeted for such purposes then it may be a case of them feathering their own nest by virtue of position. Speaking generally; budgets are passed at the AGM and the EC administer the funds and see that money is spent according to the budget and the wishes of the AGM.
If money is allocated for building maintenance and the EC undertake work outside an EC members lot then it is hard to make a case for corrupt management – a lack of fairness or lack of equity may be obvious to another owner in the complex but it is easy enough to justify such actions from underneath the OC umbrella; i.e it is easy for the EC to say it is just the  EC carrying out its duty to maintain
If these people are spending money that has not been allocated for the purposes they are spending the money on, then they are most likely breaching some part of the Act.
If, when you say large complex, you mean a large SP as defined by the Act (100+ units) then there are spending restrictions such as only spending on budgeted items and not overspending a budget by more than 10%; that is broadly speaking.

Anyone that speaks out about their behaviour is punished. I requested to renovate my kitchen and was only replacing old with new so did not involve any structural, plumbing or electrical work and yet I was not allowed to go ahead. I demanded a reason and they are yet to provide one.

From a post on another issue in this forum comes the following: “However, an owners corporation cannot restrict what an owner does within their lot. This is beyond the power of the owners corporation.” 
Simone Balsara Lawyer, TEYS Lawyers, The Strata Law Experts

There is a reference from a Supreme Court case that I need to re-find that mimics these words. If you are not undertaking work that interferes with the common property or any structural cubic space then it is really no business of the OC what you do in your lot as long as it is lawful.

My neighbour who lives next to a committee member was abused by the strata manager after he used a drop saw to make 4 quick cuts of wood at 4pm in the afternoon. I live next to him and heard the saw buzz for about 5 seconds each time and he was told the committee member was distressed at the noise pollution. When my neighbour said he was acting within the noise restrictions and that it was 4pm in daylight conditions, the strata manager accused him of being an inconsiderate home owner and threatens to pass a new by law stopping any such noise.

These people sound like they are suffering from what I call “Little Kingdom Syndrome”. It is their strata plan, they control what goes on and you can always sell if you do not like it. It is a sad but common state of affairs.

What can be done to stop this corruption? I'm afraid these people will do long term damage to the finances and property.

I can only suggest you make sure there are existing budgets for the work these people are doing, that existing budgets are not overspent and that proper resolutions exists to do the work if the work goes beyond maintaining and repair of the common property.

Go to EC meetings if you can, read your minutes carefully, talk to the other owners about your concerns, keep records of everything and stay vigilant.
If budgets and resolutions do not exist, if there is overspending or spending on items for which no budget exists, then you may need to visit CTTT.

 

Consider the following:
The legislation has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners for their own benefit…..

J Bordon: Nulama Village P/L v Owners Strata Plan 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2006] NSWCTTT 550 (25 September 2006)

The autonomy given to SPs allows for people to gather numbers, effectively take over an OC and get away with all sorts of self interest activities. The term “for their own benefit” sometime only refers to a clique inside the OC and it is often extremely difficult to have objective proof of a self interest groups looking after each other at the expense of others.

[Billen Ben]

asalsa6 said:

At an AGM a couple of years ago, it appears that the owners that attended, voted that the Chairman be given exculsive use of common property to allow her or whomever she chooses, to park their car. This was done in General Business. There was certainly nothing on the notice sent out that this would be there.

Thanks

Based on the information given; what a complete outrage! If the OC thinks it can do what it has done then the OC has a very poor understanding of what it is to be strata.

As stated by “whale”; there is no such thing as general business for an AGM. The agenda for an AGM is fixed by the legislation and introduced matters are completely out of order. Refer to cl 35(3) of Sch 2 of the SSMA;

35 (3)  A motion must not be submitted at a general meeting unless notice of the motion has been given in accordance with this clause or the motion is a motion to amend a motion of which notice has so been given.

In simple English; a motion should not be put to a General Meeting unless proper notice has been given that the matter is going to be dealt with. Proper notice would involve a duly requisitioned motion (cl 36 of Sch 2) being put on the notice which is sent to the owners and gives the owners 7 clear days notice of the meeting and the business of the meeting (cl 32 of Sch 2).

Any so called “resolution”, or minutes from an AGM, that relate to the matter should be ultra vires and have no force; i.e. it was beyond the authority of the OC to do what it did and so what it did has no effect.

There is no power or authority to introduce matters to an AGM and make decision on matters not on the agenda – it is that simple. If an Adjudicator did not declare the matter ultra vires then it is very likely the “decision” of the AGM would be invalidated (s153 SSMA) given the procedural failures that led to the decision.

It is a very sad situation that the AGM believed it could do what it did. AGMs are a formal meeting governed by statute. They are a different meeting to the types of meeting most people would generally be involved with.
If the managing agent was present at the AGM then it may be wise to seek someone a little more professional. If the agenrt was involved in preparing the AGM minutes then alarm bells should have rang when he/she noticed business was introduced.
This type of matter makes me wonder what else is going on that should not be happening and that means loss of reputation for your OC. Loss of reputation is a matter OCs should be wary of.

As stated by whale, the owners would need to pass a special resolution motion to create a by-law to give exclusive use or special privileged and then register the by-law (s52 SSMA). 

In this case the likelihood such a by-law could be created is low as the by-law would put the beneficiary of the by-law in breach of s117 of the SSMA.
SSMA s43 (4)  A by-law has no force or effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with this or any other Act or law.

If you read s117 of the SSMA;

117 (1)  An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession (whether in person or not), lessee or occupier of a lot must not:

(a)  use or enjoy the lot, or permit the lot to be used or enjoyed, in such a manner or for such a purpose as to cause a nuisance or hazard to the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not), or

(b)  use or enjoy the common property in such a manner or for such a purpose as to interfere unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the common property by the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the common property, or

(c)  use or enjoy the common property in such a manner or for such a purpose as to interfere unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of any other lot by the occupier of the lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the lot.

It is clear that the people currently blocking your garage are in breach of the Act — their bad luck; if you would like to tell them that.

You could politely ask these people to cease to park in your way or you may have to seek an order from an Adjudicator for their breaching the Act.

Hopefully everyone will realize the error of the AGM and things will resolve themselves simply otherwise this should be a simple matter for the strata dispute resolution process.

Whale said:
If you're in NSW, contact the Office of Fair Trading whose Specialist Strata Support Group can tell you how to apply for a resolution to be declared void.

I know people who work in this section. Trained is not really an appropriate term. My personal experience with this section of OFT is that you sometimes get good advice, other times not so good. I have taken it upon myself to ring several times on the same matter so as to talk to different operators and i have been given conflicting advice.

The first step of training in this section is to give the “would be operator” a copy of the strata living guide – the training doesn't get much more intense after that so their knowledge is fairly general and dealing with matters that go beyond being common or simple is not their forte.
If you do ring them ask for Angus – he is pretty good.

[Author]

Replies