[Cappy]

Thank you Tharra and Marvin – your comments are very helpful. The links you provided Tharra have been particularly beneficial.  

[Cappy]

Is anyone aware of any developments in this area? An Internet Service Provider (ISP) has sent our Owners Corporation (OC) a Land Access Advisory Notice (LAAN) advising that they will be laying their cables in our building, basically whether we like it or not, give our permission etc. They say a NSW Supreme Court decision handed down in May this year allows them access and although they would rather do the work with our approval, they will be doing it anyway. Would anyone know if the interference problems mentioned above have been resolved and if we would be then bypassed when the National Broadband Network (NBN) comes our way? Would you suggest consulting a Strata Lawyer?

We are feeling somewhat bullied by these people, telling us what we will be having in our Community and when.

Thank you.

[Cappy]

I also think it looks great and is user friendly. Thanks for your efforts Jimmy T.

[Cappy]

Thank you PeterC and Whale for alerting me to the pitfalls of that not so smart idea!

We probably need more effective communication in the initial discussions to achieve consensus of the Executive Committee (EC).

There is great scope for improvement in our budget preparation and allocations, so thank you Whale for that input. There certainly is the opportunity to achieve better financial control and management through better budget preparation and that could solve the current issues.

[Cappy]

As the EC Secretary of a large Strata, I struggle now to prepare and circulate minutes of our meetings to all Owners and Members within the 7 day requirement of the current Act. I would find it impossible to prepare the minutes and then get approval from all EC Members, prior to circulation to all Owners, within this specified time. The proposed new Act suggests unlimited EC Member numbers, which makes this even more difficult. 

Fortunately, I’ve rarely experienced this problem with inaccurate minutes, and when I have, it has been really minor. Possibly the Secretary not the system needs changing.

 

[Cappy]

I believe this saga is all true – but parties on both sides seem certifiable!! None of them are born for strata living. My strata neighbors seem like kittens after reading this epistle!   

Merry Christmas and so many thanks to JimmyT and the Strata Guru pros for the excellence of advice afforded this year.

Cappy

[Cappy]

I have caused much upset in my OC in my effort to establish if sale of common property requires a 75% special resolution UE vote OR a unanimous vote at our imminent EGM. The opinions expressed regarding the issue in this Forum have been varied.

To update you all – our Strata Lawyer has advised this weekend that a 75% and NOT a unanimous vote is required and the matter is subsequently closed.

No-one seems able to refer to any specific reference in the SMA to support either option.

Thanks everyone for your previous assistance. 

 

[Cappy]

Thanks for all the replies – however I still remain confused as to the need for a 75% or unanimous vote to sell common property. What sort of issues require a unanimous vote?

The proposed common property sale in my Strata has followed all the guidelines and requirements however the legal costs incurred by the EC and SM to do so, that is facilitate legally and correctly the investigation, transaction & transfer of title will have outweighed the cost of the income from the sale by some $5000!! If the sale of the common property does NOT go ahead, the Owners Corp will lose the $20,000 spent in legal fees to date.

I find it unacceptable – and unbelievable – that our EC and or SM allowed the Owners Corp to run up bills of $20,000 in legals and other expenses etc to investigate a common property sale of $15,000 when costs were only recoverable if the sale proceeded. Surely they should have stated up front that all expenses incurred were the responsibility of the  Lot Owners requesting the purchase.

If the $15,000 common property sale is NOT allowed – the Owners Corp will be $20,000 out of pocket. 

If the $15,000 common property sale is allowed – the Owners Corp recover their $20,000 legal expenses.

An EGM has been called and all Owners have been encouraged to support the sale. To maintain some financial balance, it seems as if we have no options, yet I feel the EC and SM have questions to answer in regard to the position they have created.

Your thoughts, comments or suggestions would be appreciated? 

[Cappy]

Our SM has advised that only 75% need to agree to a Special Resolution to sell common property. Originally I’d been told it had to be unanimous and Whale said this in an earlier post. I’ve searched the Act without luck – could someone direct me to the correct section?

 

Thank you. 

[Cappy]

Information provided re unit entitlement was extremely helpful. Thank you. Does this UE regulation apply to all votes on any issues, quorum attendance calculation at meetings etc or just 65A matters or Special Resolutions?

My large inner Sydney Strata consists of studios, 1 -3 bedroom apartments, penthouses, storage facilities and car spaces. UE entitlements range from 8 to 180, that is car spaces to penthouses, and people can own multiple car spaces, with or without residential unit ownership. Yet for voting purposes, no consideration is given to UE – it is all lot entitlements. 10 car spaces = minimal levies and minimal UE but equates to 10 votes. 1 penthouse = maximum levies and maximum UE but equates to 1 vote. Is our SM implementing the Act correctly?

Thank you for your prompt replies and best wishes for Flat Chat live tomorrow.

My questions have no doubt veered from the Privacy of Terrace issue but I am reluctant to start another thread.   

 

[Cappy]

My large Strata in NSW has a somewhat similar situation so we also need to comply with Sect 65A of the Act and pass a resolution at an EGM that is approved by 75% of owners present – in person or by proxy. One of our lot owners is requesting significant alterations to one of her lots – she owns 4 lots within the complex, therefore has 4 votes at any meeting, in regard to any issue.

Whale, would the lot owner’s 4 votes be included in the 75% you mentioned in your previous response or would the owner be excluded from voting on the issue as it would be beneficial to them alone? Despite being a large strata, attendance at meetings is appalling, quorums impossible to achieve for any reason, so 4 votes is significant.

Thanks JimmyT and all for my “daily forum fix.”

[Cappy]

I posted the initial question – and thanks to you all for the in depth replies. I am most appreciative of your input – yet somewhat confused about the proxy issue which I had not originally even thought about. My question referred to a large Strata in NSW. There was no quorum but all matters and motions on the AGM agenda were considered and a vote taken on 2 levy options, one almost 4 times more than the other, a new EC was elected among other issues – quite significant matters in my mind. Owners were then told not to attend the adjourned meeting – we didn’t have to do anything else as the Strata Manager had our instructions. Notice of the adjourned meeting has been received and a proxy form was enclosed. We were told we didn’t have to do anything – so the proxy form enclosure was confusing.  A note accompanied the original AGM notice, advising all Owners that nothing could be considered or voted on unless there was a quorum! Seems weird to me. I appreciate that this is an easy and expedient way to do things, and indicative of the feelings of those who made the effort to attend the original AGM – but can you tell me simply if the process followed at this meeting was correct? Thank you.

[Author]

Replies