[Blueman]

Looked it up, they are back on the 24th August 2026 in the supreme court.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jimmy-T

[Blueman]

Hi, so what happened to these case(s)? I  was looking at the court listing’s, saw the 52 case numbers, then they disappeared. From what I saw they didn’t seem to make it into court.

[Blueman]

 

Thank you Jimmy-T for your earlier response. Since my original post, I have obtained some further information.

This is a large, established strata management company (part of a well-known group), so I had assumed their record-keeping processes would be fairly mature.

I originally requested a copy of the email correspondence used to distribute the 2025 AGM notice and agenda, as I did not receive the notice before the meeting and only became aware the AGM had taken place when I later received the AGM minutes. Several other owners I spoke with could not confirm that they had received the AGM notice either.

I was initially advised that proof-of-service records are not retained and was provided with a copy of the AGM agenda PDF. After clarifying that I was seeking the email correspondence itself rather than proof-of-service records, the matter was escalated to the branch manager.

The branch manager advised that:

AGM notices and agendas are distributed using a third-party mailing house.
The Owners Corporation retains only the notice and agenda documents themselves.
Mailing or distribution records are not retained as part of the Owners Corporation’s books and records.

I have also since found the NSW Government guidance on record keeping:

https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/strata/serving-on-a-committee/record-keeping-requirements#toc-communication-records

which states that communication records, including emails, should be retained for seven years.

Given the above, would you pursue the matter further (for example with Fair Trading), or would you simply accept that this is common industry practice and move on?

Thanks.

[Blueman]

Hi,

Thank you for your response.

For clarification when I referred to changing the chairperson, it was for changing the chairperson of the AGM only. So part 1 (AGM without Quorum) was done by the strata manager, part 2 (adjourned AGM) by someone else. Previously the strata manager assumed the role of chairperson for the AGM.

Regards,

Blueman

[Blueman]

Hi,

Thankyou for your response. Do you think that replacing the fences around the townhouse courtyards would be considered a “trigger”?

I also assume painting the common area would not.

[Blueman]

@Whale said:
Consequently prior (to 1988) developments such as your Strata Plan are exempt due to the amended legislation being non-retrospective provided no significant additions/alterations to the building have since been undertaken, where Council’s required consent to those would have acted as a “trigger” for the imposition of then current fire safety requirements to the whole Plan.

Your Owners Corporation (O/C) could arrange for a fire safety inspection of its Plan to be undertaken against today’s standards, but that can open a “can of worms” that could cost a whole lot more than the contents of that currently adequate sinking fund; perhaps that’s why those A.G.M. Minutes record the O/C’s decision not to go down that path.

Thanks for that response. Our AGM is coming up, then a Committee meeting straight afterwards. There is a motion about the Annual Fire Safety Statement on the Committee meeting agenda. Don’t know why it could not have been a AGM motion.

Our residential only townhouse strata complex was built around 1982, so my initial understanding is our complex would be exempt from the requirement to provide this statement?

[Blueman]

Hi,

I wrote to the other committee members about rectifying the defects in my fence. I asked them if they had an objection to having defects corrected and if they did could they state their reasons. I set a timeframe of a week for a response, no point in leaving it opened ended.

The good news is I received no objections; the bad news is in reality I received no responses.

[Blueman]

Hi Whale,

Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.

I had a look at the quotes obtained. The very first quote obtained, working in date order, mentions the metreage and number of gates. The last quote, the one that was accepted, also specifies the exact same metreage and number of gates. As I pointed out previously the number of gates is incorrect. An amazing coincidence that both quotes get the exact same meterage and number of gates. Maybe the last quote just did the quote site unseen and only saw the details of the first quote.

I looked at the copy of the strata plan documents that I received when I bought the townhouse. Unfortunately the copy is obviously a reduced size copy, so thick or thin lines cannot be guaranteed. It is definitely not a broken line. The plan documents do specify the total area of the lot, this includes the area that is the courtyard.

The long side fence with the timber filling the gap, is not stepped. The bottom rail for the whole length is on the same horizontal alignment for the three sections of fence, while the ground falls away.

I realise there is a deficiency in the documented scope of work, but the scope of work never states “replace raked bottom rails with anything else”. Since the same fence installers removed the old fence and installed the new fence the next business day, a like for like replacement should have been done, it is what I expected. Not being scoped properly, I don’t think is a valid argument.

Clients don’t always know exactly what they want, sometimes they don’t even know the questions they should be asking.

[Blueman]

Hi Whale,

Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.

No one, strata manager included, at the AGM raised the use of common funds to be an inappropriate source of funds for the work. The only query from one owner was, would it require a special level. I took that query in the context of having sufficient funds, rather than it being an inappropriate source. Until you had mentioned it, I’d considered the fence around each lot to be common property, just like the common dividing wall between lots.

The calculations to determine individual contributions would be rather time consuming, there would have been over 100 individual items to be calculated, basically the cost for 1 run per meter at full height, cost of 1 run per meter at half height all with varying lengths, add in a gate, then calculation the per lot contributions, and common fund portion. Then chasing people for the funds, explain why the fence is not common property, etc.

I guess a better strata manager would help.

My “more or less resolved” comment actually relates only to the gate opening direction issue, the other 4 issues initially mentioned, as far as I’m concerned are unresolved, so any advice on that is appreciated.

[Blueman]

Hi Whale,

Thank you for your response, it is appreciated.

Just clarify a few things.

The Strata Manager sent out an agenda for a paper committee meeting (not a face to face meeting) for a motion to approve the work, the meeting was in December 2014. Before the scheduled paper committee meeting date I sent an email to the other committee members outlining my concerns, the Executive Committee approved the motion to pay the fence installer. So the fence installer would have been paid.

The Strata Manager did select the contractors to provide quotes, claimed that he had used them before and they had done a good job, the quotes were presented at the last AGM and one was approved.

I’m happy to accept the use of common funds as a method to pay for the fence; I disagree with the timing of it. Also it would take a lot more work to calculate the cost per individual lot using the method you have stated.

The quote was for, Supply and install Colorbond fence for the two heights in quantities of 336.4m and 215.3m, supply and install Colorbond single gates 900 wide in quantity 55 (incorrect amount), demolish and remove existing fence. I have no other document that describes in any more detail the scope of work.

As for the scope of work, I would expect that it would be on a like for like basis using new material instead of old material. If the old fence was raked to suit the contour of the land, then I’d expect that is how the new fence should also be, etc

Then again, the fence installer initially installed our gates opening outwards from the lot, instead of inwards to the lot as per the original fence. There is a lot more detail on that issue, but it is more or less resolved.

[Blueman]

I am well aware of the NSW model bylaws

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/sch1.html

So assuming this case is in NSW, in my opinion based on the information provided by the OP, the schemes EC has acted reasonably in this matter.

[Blueman]

Who’s to say that in this case the refusal was unreasonable? Just because the application was rejected, does not make it unreasonable. The OP states the block had been pet free from some time.

If the existing owners wanted to allow pets they could introduce a bylaw for that purpose, it seems they haven’t. Seems by refusing applications the majority of existing owners don’t want pets.

If the existing owners wanted to allow pets and were unhappy with the decisions of the existing EC, they could change the EC at the appropriate meeting, but they haven’t done that either.

JT, our bylaws do attempt to address this issue, but they make no mention of horses, cattle, pigs, goats, fish, snakes, lizards, spiders, cockroaches or a whole heap of other animals, etc.

[Blueman]

Well, why have these sort of model by-laws in the first place? What was discussed when the scheme was first set-up? If the government meant for it to be a free-for-all on the matter, then there would be no need for the model by-law to exist.

[Blueman]

Hi,

You maybe interested in this quote from a NSW govt website as far as ownership is concerned. BTW, I’m not a lawyer.

From the second paragraph…

“A beneficiary does not own the property until the executor distributes the estate. Before distribution, the executor is regarded as the ‘owner’ of the assets in so far as the executor holds the estate in trust for the beneficiaries.”

https://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/guides/wills_estates/beneficiaries.html

The strata representative should deal with the executor rather than beneficiaries.

[Blueman]

Thank you for your responses.

Something that I probably need to clarify is that the gate is a sliding gate, rather than a vertically opening gate.

This may seem pointless, but I have continued to try to get the name of standard from the SM or the SM to get it from his contractor. But all I got was a copy of the contractors WorkCover training certificate.

[Author]

Replies