[Billen Ben]

leif said:

Resolution: A decision of the meeting (after taking a vote) and 25% or more owners present

Special Resolution: No more than 25% of votes are cast against and 25% or more owners present

Unanimous Resolution: No vote is against, and 25% or more owners present

As a normal AGM struggles to get the quorum 25% of owners ………

 

From the Strata Schemes Managment Act Schedule 2 clause 12 regarding quorums:

(2)  There is a quorum for considering and voting on such a motion or at such an election only if:

(a)  at least one-quarter of the number of persons entitled to vote on the motion or at the election is present, either personally or by duly appointed proxy, or

(b)  at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlement of the strata scheme is represented by the persons who are present and entitled to vote on the motion or at the election, either personally or by duly appointed proxy.

Notice the quorum of part (a) is one quarter of those entitled to vote. Being entitled to vote means being financial even though the Act says that a non financial persons vote does not count at clause 10 sub clause 8. It does not say the owners is no longer entitled to vote, it just says the vote is not to be counted. The interpretation of sub clause 8 has consequences for submitting motions and other parts of the Act that refer to people entitled to vote but that is another issue.

(8) Voting rights may not be exercised if contributions not paid
A vote at a general meeting (other than a vote on a motion requiring a unanimous resolution) by an owner of a lot or a person with a priority vote in respect of the lot does not count unless payment has been made before the meeting of all contributions levied on the owner, and any other amounts recoverable from the owner, in relation to the lot that are owing at the date of the notice for the meeting.

So the 25% of owners present is 25% of owners who are financial being present. Say you have a 100 unit SP and 20 people are not financial. The quorum is not 25 people it is 20 due to the unfinancial status of some owners.
Just remember it is 25% of those eligible to vote and to be eligible to vote apparently means being financial (unless it is a unanimous resolution that is being determined).

[Billen Ben]

Hi fchat55
This is probably not the type of advice you want to hear but it is general advice often given to people in your situation. SELL!

“People who are not part of the gang are not willing to participate …”.
Same situation in my SP and people tend to head for exit turnstile as their preferred method of dealing with the problems.

[Billen Ben]

I guess my point was owners do not have a mailbox because a shared alphabetized slot in a bank of alphabetized slots is not really a persons mailbox. Do you feel the developer should have supplied mailboxes for owners when registered?

There was an AGM motion to build a frame for a bank of boxes but purchasing the box to go in the frame has been left to the owners, i.e. the OC is not supplying the box.

Originally the OCs mailbox was the only box and it was located two and a half kilometers from the SP. It was brought down to the front of the SP and then the wooden box with pigeon holes was built.

thanks for your suggestions

[Billen Ben]

No – it is that simple.

If he is appointed as a substitute member* then he can vote but as an advisor to the EC he has no vote.

* SSMA
Shedule 3 Constitution of the Executive committee

3   Acting members of the executive committee

(1)  A member of the executive committee may, with the consent of the executive committee, appoint an owner or company nominee of a corporation which is an owner to act in his or her place as a member at any meeting of the executive committee.

(2)  The owner or company nominee so appointed is, while so acting as a member, taken to be a member.

(3)  An owner or company nominee of a corporation may be so appointed whether or not he or she is a member of the executive committee already.

(4)  If a person so appointed is a member of the executive committee the person may, at any meeting of the executive committee, separately vote in the person’s capacity as such a member and on behalf of the member in whose place the person has been appointed to act.

[Billen Ben]

At least you have a letter box. Owners in my large SP have a communal mailbox. It is timber, it has a door with no lock and inside the wooden box there are alphabetized pigeon holes. It has been this way for the best part of 10 years.

Mail gets to a pigeon hole after being transfers from the single mail box at the entrance of the strata plan (SP). The box at the entrance is the Owners Corporations (OC) box, it has no door, stands at an angle, is rusty, has holes in top and the paint is poor. It does not even have the name, owners corporation, on it anymore because that was on the long gone door.

The mail contractor just drops everyone's mail in the OC's box and then some kind owner takes it over to the pigeon holes.

There is no mail security what so ever and mail theft is very common.

Like many owners, I have a PO Box at the post office that is 20km away but that does not guarantee that from time to time someone sends an item to the street address. PO box cost over $90 this year.

I find it interesting the OC “could” be held responsible for mail theft and/or the consequences of mail theft. I shall let my EC know; thanks struggler.

[Billen Ben]

clive2000 said:

You need to get real and stop being so technical. Fred is doing your OC a favour. It would cost a lot more than $600 to have a professional strata manager. If your block is run harmoniously, why put it in jeopardy by being so mean? Ultimately, if Fred gets his act together and convenes the proper meeting and demands a poll, he and the other unit with 300 will prevail, and in the meantime, you would have created disharmony and wasted time and money.

Hi Clive,
If Fred doesn't know better than to bring up a motion about getting paid at an EC meeting then what other things is he doing that are not correct and i would add to that if the other 3 EC members are prepared to run the SP for nothing then Fred is a big expensive.

Six hundred dollars is a lot in a four unit block. That is $150 per unit increase in levy.

It's a four unit block. One person who knows a bit of strata, can do high school level math and can read should be able to run it without giving up their day job. 

If you shop around you might find someone, an agency, prepared to do Freds work for less than $600. Agents get nice insurance kick backs and it is trivial to manage a 4 unit strata. Do not be surprised if you do find someone.

I would like to drop a few names but will just say look at agencies that rely on technology as they can often provide good services at a good price. One of my favorite agents leads the industry in electronic management practices and can therefore offer much better prices per unit to manage SP's.

“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 whole idea was that small blocks of units could look after themselves for no real cost to owners. Just because an agent would cost more than volunteers should not make payment motions for volunteers a given.

It was Fred who put up the motion, the motion was out of order – I'd pay for that sort of management – NOT!; I am being a little hard.

I appreciate what Fred is doing for his SP but if he wants money to continue and people are voting no then these people must be prepared to step up if Fred walks.

I am assuming the others will rise to the challenge.

Why pay an agent when you can  pay Fred a lot less?? If that is really the case.

Why pay Fred when the others will do it for free??

[Billen Ben]

Hi unlucky,
A 2 -2 vote fails by definition because there was no majority. A tied vote means a motion fails.

What was the understanding of how the vote was being done?

If the vote was a show of hands vote, one hand = one vote, then the motion failed but if the vote had been by poll then the motion passed.

If it was by poll then what method did the Chair adopt – polls are generally done on paper and are determined based on entitlement. A poll can be by show of hands where the hand represents the unit entitlement but it needs to be clear the vote is a poll.

A motion to pay an EC member for their toil (volunteer work) needs to be an AGM motion, the EC cannot pass such a motion, and if you want it to pass such a motion at the AGM then it seems you will need to demand a poll when the motion is put to the meeting.

There is no need for the beneficiary of a motion to pay an EC member to abstain but it is arguably more ethical for them to leave the matter to those who are deciding if they are worthy.

Hope the above helps.

[Billen Ben]

I like the Vista Print product placement.

Thank you Whale for a little clarification. The barrister says no fines but as Jimmy says the concept is untested. I tend to agree with the barrister but if it is untested then the barrister is expressing opinion.

I like the fee idea – it is pseudo paid parking except it cost a lot more than a hungry parking meter. It is like a very short term license over a small piece of common property. It is also an untested idea that is dangerous.

Just look at the nature of some OC's found in this forum and the concept of allowing them to impose fees is as dangerous as letting them impose fines.

I would also mention that elsewhere in the forum there is something about sticking things under windscreen wipers (cheap at Auto Barn) being illegal.

Jimmy loves to talk about the owners empowering things by special resolution but i have some concerns over this type of democracy, it can disadvantage people because they do not have the numbers.

If fees were by unanimous resolution then perhaps that would be OK but action by special resolution had led to cases where CTTT has acknowledged that this type of democracy can disproportionately disadvantage some people. Generally it works but it has the potential to be misused and that potential has been realised in several CTTT matters.

I look forward to some comments on the 4th level of Government – in our OC we now have a 5th level; sub committees act as if they are empowered by their existence.

[Billen Ben]

So there are multiple lifts and the owner is using a removalist?
I failed to read that part of the post.

I would not argue the OC has a “perfect right” to protect the common property but what Jimmy suggests is a part of what is wrong in strata.

If a person breaks a by-law then be as big a pain as possible to that person and see if you can't hit them where it may or may not hurt, in the hip pocket — that is what i am reading. That is sad.

One could just as easily pay the bond and be the victim of a disgruntled manager if the manager doesn't like what he is seeing. In the case in question it sounds as if the manager and the tenant are not best of friends so there is little guarantee everything would go smooth anyway.
Perhaps we all need a 5 page by-law giving those moving out a degree of protection so they can get out without having to wrap the exit path in cotton wool.

Don't removalists have there own insurance to cover any damage caused in the act of moving the client?

If the owner/tenanat self moves then they save a bomb and half of Jimmy's immediate reprisal approach disappears – let the guy not lock the lift; if that was ever going to be the case.

In my SP there is a bond applied to hire of one of the common property buildings. This is only a relatively new thing, it is a policy and not a by-law, and one person has already not had their bond returned. The place was left tidy and any “issues” were sorted by the hirer, at the hirer's expense. The OC gave no reason for keeping the bond.

I will take this concept a little further. We have owners who hire large earth moving equipment (vehicles with tracks) that drive on concrete roads that cost significant money. Water tankers, concrete truck and other very heavy large vehicles are fairly common. The potential damage could run into tens of thousands of dollars. If this OC required a bond to protect themselves from potential damage then it would prohibit most owners from ever having these service available – especially if the bond ended up being consumed to pay someone to watch.

I understand where you are coming from with the bond concept and the details are somewhat unimportant but I am with those who would object to having to pay to have the building manager stand and watch the whole removal at the departing persons expense.

Pay for any damage- sure.
Pay to have the removal police watch over the parade – no thanks.

[Billen Ben]

Let's say you do refuse to pay the part (f) bond; what can the OC do?

Perhaps they might send you a notice to comply for breaching the by-law. Hooray for them. You are gone so it is not as if you are about to re-offend.

This by-law sounds completely bizarre, just ignore the by-law. You would not be the first tenant in NSW to ignore a half-baked strata by-law. Let the OC try to enforce it and see how they go.

Who proposed this by-law; the Manager??

Situations like this should not exist – they can't hold prisoner.

[Billen Ben]

Are things getting a little out of hand?

OC instigated fines for parking, OC requested management fees for issuing a notices to comply – are these things really valid because if they are then the 4th level of Govt (Owners Corporations and their agents) have been given too much autonomy in their little kingdoms and Pandora's box is open.

If these concepts are valid then i would encourage OC's to regulate who lives in their SP's via fines and management fees directed at driving those certain undesirable people out of their little kingdoms. If by-laws can be passed to have fines then why not use the power to manipulate who lives in a SP.

A by-law that says a $1000 fine for old guys who wear their pants too high – that will get rid of whinging old Jack in unit 7 who constantly writes to the EC about everything the EC is not doing right.

In another topic on this forum it is stated that OC fines are bluff, even if they are in a by-law.
Are they bluff or are they legitimate?

This whole topic exists for the simple reason the strata dispute resolution mechanism is dysfunctional and CTTT are useless; there's ya problem.

That each and every SP is left to deal with the matter of parking as if they are their own little realm is a failure of a system that does not want responsibility for the problems it has created by being out of touch with the nature of the strata beast.

[Billen Ben]

ach said:

1. The following post here on FlatChat states that there must be a complaint submitted before a notice to comply can be issued:
/forum/by-laws-and-outlaws/processes-of-by-law-enforcement/#p598

Is this correct, does the Executive Commitee really need a complaint to be submitted before it can enforce bylaws?

 Hi Ach,
It is preferable there be a written complaint but the EC, not the agent – unless the agent has been given the powers of the EC in the agreement, can act if the EC is satisfied there has been a breach of a by-law.

There is no legal requirement for a written complaint but a good EC will generally not act without one. There being a written complaint is good procedure, not a legal requirement.

You should expect to see an item on an EC meeting agenda if the EC is considering sending a notice to comply. If there was not proper notice of the matter on an EC meeting agenda then note that in my SP a notice to comply was retracted after such a failure (abnd mediation) and there is always the famous quote from, now deputy Chair, CTTT Member Balding.

“I accept in effect the applicant’s submission that before a decision can be made by the owners corporation whether at its general meeting or by its executive committee meeting there must be due notice.”
M Balding in Bales v The Owners Corporation SP 12303 (Strata and Community Schemes) [2009] NSWCTTT 296 (2 June 2009)

Sending a notice is a decision and proper notice is important – allegedly.

Jimmy gives you good advice. It is now the OC’s problem given their “approval” came in the form of acquiescence when the unit was installed.

[Billen Ben]

Macfadyen said:

 

My question is – I thought you had to request other agenda items so you make the best use of the time and cost involved in having the EGM.  Is this a strata requirement? 

Hi Macfadyen;
It is the case that there is no requirement on anyone to request items for an EC meeting, an EGM, or an AGM.

The onus is on owners to requisition motions they want included.

This is found in cl 36 of Sch 2 of the Strata Act.

If a matter comes up that an owner wants dealt with then an owner should send the requisition for the inclusion of a motion ASAP just in case an EGM is called without it being known the meeting is coming. Often owners do not see EGM's coming and as stated in another post it is often the case these meetings (EGMs) are specific to particular issues.

In my SP EGM's are extremely rare and often turn into pseudo AGMs because owners are made aware the meeting is coming prior to an agenda being sent. This clutters the agenda with all sorts of other matters and somewhat distracts from the main reason for holding the EGM in the first place.

It is interesting that prior to receiving your notice that there was not some indication the meeting was coming.
Did an EC meeting have an agenda item stating that the EC was going to make a determination on holding an EGM?
Were there EC minutes that stated the EC voted to call an EGM?

Clause 31 part 2 of Sch 2 empowers the EC to call an EGM but i would suggest that the EC needs to make a decision (pass a motion to create a resolution) to do so and therefore some sort of agenda item or notice of the intent to make a decision on exercising that authority should have been made clear to the owners.

The EC is subordinate to the OC and so something should have appeared somewhere in an agenda/minutes indicating the intent/decison of the EC.

If you just go an agenda for an EGM and had no idea the EC made the decision then the decision is arguably faulty but it is not a fault that would be worthwhile pursuing.

“I accept in effect the applicant’s submission that before a decision can be made by the owners corporation whether at its general meeting or by its executive committee meeting there must be due notice.”
M Balding in Bales v The Owners Corporation SP 12303 (Strata and Community Schemes) [2009] NSWCTTT 296 (2 June 2009)

You should have been able to see the EGM coming in time to make a requisition. If you didn't see it coming then a little more transparency from the management might help next time the EC wish to call an EGM.

[Billen Ben]

Mr Strata said:

Billen Ben,
Being part of SCA NSW and particularly being involved in these matters, it would be good to have feed back on the EC training course.

……

Mr S

 

Mr S
As you are aware there is a great deal of information needed by owners just to meet with the requirements of the SSMA before an EC/OC even looks at the myriad of other legislation.

The EC training course offers a very good level of introductory information that is well presented in an easy to use format. The interactive website is an excellent delivery vehicle. For someone uninitiated with strata who wants to get to know what strata is all about and what is required if they do want to step up and be on an EC then the package is a well rounded introduction.

Given the average strata punter knows next to zip, the package is one of the best free resources I have seen. I have been to an OFT information night and what is in the SCA EC training modules is a much clearer and more informative package with a more user friendly delivery method.

The package is a little short on the special needs of a large strata but this is understandable given large strata owners are such a small percentage of the target audience. Perhaps a small additional module for large strata could be added in the future.

Speaking purely from the perspective of how such a training course would impact on my strata plan I would have to say the package is problematic. In a “free spirit” OC the idea of compliance to the requirements of the Act is as desirable as a fan heater on a hot summer day. If you get an OC with some people with knowledge challenging the free spirit ethos of “the majority” in a SP then conflict will follow.

It is true that ignorance is bliss for owners in an informally run SP. Although meeting the requirements of the Act is in an SP’s interest other vested interests may not take too kindly to such a concept as it may interfere with their ingrained ways – and people do not like change. In a nutshell; the training package has the potential to disrupt an informally, run SP that is happy with its non compliant ways.

I have done the 90779NSW course (the old strata management course; ~550 hours) and the SCA course is understandably short of the content in that course but I think the SCA course offers a level of knowledge that should be a base requirement for anyone who wants to be on an EC.

“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)

“More commonly than otherwise, members of Owners Corporations are laypeople. They, just as the very few who would be lawyers, must provide proper management of a strata scheme.”
G Durie; Senior Member CTTT. Bushby v Owners Corporation SP 64939 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2009] NSWCTTT 70 (25 February 2009)

Untrained, uninformed “ordinary people”, “laypeople”, providing “proper management” seems a tall order given the complexities of all the legislations governing an SP.

The SCA course closes the gap between the two quotes..

[Billen Ben]

From the Strata Scheme Management Act Schedule 2

36   Requisition for motion to be included on agenda for general meeting

(1)  Any person entitled to vote at a general meeting of an owners corporation on a motion that does not require a unanimous resolution may, by notice in writing served on the secretary of the executive committee, require inclusion in the agenda of the next general meeting of the owners corporation of a motion set out in the notice and the secretary must comply with the notice.

(2)  The secretary must give effect to the requirement of the notice.

(3)  Subclause (1) does not require the inclusion of a motion on the agenda of a general meeting for which notices have already been given in accordance with this Schedule but in that case the motion must be included in the agenda of the next general meeting after that.

(4) ……

Once you have been served your notice then that seems to be that and you cannot add extra items even if time permits.

One way to add an extra item would be if there is 100% attendance at the AGM and there is a unanimous vote to a procedural motion to include the extra item – it is not “legal” but it would be the “will of the OC” and in some cases this sort of procedural indiscretion is tolerated if ever questioned because the whole OC was party to it.

good luck

[Author]

Replies