Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just to add to JimmyT’s advice, send all your letters relating to strata matters by registered mail, with proof of delivery. It is a little more expensive, but makes the receipt of your letter undeniable. It comes complete with delivery date, making it impossible to deny a letter was received on time to include any suggested motion on the agenda of an upcoming meeting. Good luck.
Record the meetings (any), but inform the others that you will do so. After that, you can challenge the minutes at your leisure. The punishment is decided & meted out by NCAT.
I was reading the second reading of SSMA amendment bill of 2004 this afternoon, but found hardly any mention of the 5 year archival provision which came in then. Strange really. I think it was meant to be that way (slipping under the radar), while they all raved about knickers hanging on balconies.
Lovely, lovely Kangaroo.
Thank you JimmyT. That was really all I wanted to know. All of you gurus are truly helpful. Reading the Act in light of your collective advice on various matters makes a lot more sense than it would otherwise.
Dear Whale, during your cetacean pause, did you consider my question at all? Which was as follows:
“Due to the requirement of 5 year archival of strata documents, we are unlikely to be able to discover whether there were any resolutions regarding the additions at all. Unless of course, the individual owners are required to hold on to the permission/agreement documents as proof the works were approved. Does anyone know?”Thank you both kiwipaul & Whale. Due to the requirement of 5 year archival of strata documents, we are unlikely to be able to discover whether there were any resolutions regarding the additions at all. Unless of course, the individual owners are required to hold on to the permission/agreement documents as proof the works were approved. Does anyone know?
On a different note, there may be a way to equalise this situation where individual owners make additions & the rest of us are saddled with their maintenance. A strata lot owner with deep pockets, living in a similar situation anywhere in NSW could lodge an application at the Tribunal to demand that all lot owners in that strata must have the same alterations in order to preserve the pleasing uniformity of its appearance, therefore its value. Further, all such construction expenses be paid by its sinking fund & any related maintenance paid out of the admin fund just like the others, who, while they might have paid for their alterations, would have had the benefit of free maintenance out of the common funds over the years. The success of such an application would also benefit the incumbent government of the time that the purported fairness of its strata laws are there for all to see. Failing that, the application itself would be noticed widely, especially with a little help from the applicant, along with other interested parties in similar situations, creating a very, very important precedent. Since our legal system runs on precedents, even in minutely prescribed laws, it would make little difference whether the initial application were successful. I can just see the SPs lining up at the Tribunal. It would be interesting to hear from the specialist lawyers who read this forum. And dear Strata gurus, please pause a while before you attack your keyboards to call me a harebrained idiot.
Our EC is restricted to $5,000 at a time, meaning they can spend $5,000 every day until the kitty is cleared out. This is never pointed out at the AGMs, during the discussions on restrictions. We haven’t raised it so far in the two AGMs we have attended; however, we have begun taking steps to discover documents (they are very well hidden, including any EC meetings or related minutes). Just recently, we came into possession of our EC’s minutes (only one mind you), via the Tribunal. We had no idea they’d had a meeting at that time, let alone an agenda or the ensuing minutes. It (the ECM) had been held more than a year earlier & not mentioned at all at our AGM last year. The trouble in NSW is that the Tribunal does not take any action when it becomes aware of wrong doing, but sits on its laurels until it receives a complaint. No law can serve its purpose when there is no supervision of its administration. It is clear, the government expects every owner in strata schemes to have a well rounded legal training, not just in the SSMA, but common law as well, which is almost a thousand years old by the way, along with very deep pockets in case they lose an action at the Tribunal (must pay its costs). In order to deter vexacious complainants and/or litigants, the application & supervision of the Act has been made very cumbersome & expensive for everyone, except the miscreants. But, never fear, we shall rise up & “cause justice to be done on all malefactors”; well, failing that, we will attend to the ones in our vicinity.
JimmyT, I don’t watch “The Good Wife” for starters (I find Foyle much prettier). As for the selfies, my understanding is that the ECs don’t have to admit non-committee members & can stop the meeting until the offending party departs. What can he prove without a sound recording he can share? I don’t mean to take this to the nth degree, but malice of the strata Hitlers seem to know no bounds, judging by what I have read in this forum & elsewhere.
Dear kiwipaul, you haven’t really answered my question. As far as I can see, all the alterations & additions to common property must come with a special by-law, not just an AGM (we don’t have GMs or EGMs) agreed permission. Oh, and I forgot to mention the pergolas. However, I agree with you that NSW SSMA is open to abuse all the way. They (our EC & the SM) are clobbering an elderly widow with a heart condition at the Tribunal to remove her a/c from the common wall (she had it installed last year) to her back wall. All of the clobberers, bar the SM, have all three “improvements” & nary a special by-law in sight.
Would he be permitted? If not, even if he takes them, he wouldn’t be able to show them to anyone legally, which means no evidence.
Reading this thread today has been very interesting. In our complex, some of the houses have air conditioning units attached to their back walls which are within their fenced courtyards. There are also some with automated garage doors. Our by-laws are of the generic variety, lifted straight from the enabling legislation. There being no special by-laws, all of those “improvements” must be illegal. Last year, we paid for maintenance & replacements of some of those doors out of our admin fund. That too must have been illegal. I can’t find anything to the contrary in either the SSMA or the OFT web site. What do you say people?
JimmyT said:
Not disputing any of this. It does seem strange though that the law says a by-law “must” contain certain elements and then, elsewhere, spells out what to do if it doesn’t.JimmyT is right & this question must have been raised & dealt with by NCAT/CTTT in the past. Does anyone know?@JimmyT said:
At the EC meeting, you can ask to speak and then ask why you have been singled out, what the problem is and if there isn’t a better way of dealing with these issues.
If they refuse to let you speak or refuse to answer your question, this is further evidence that they are not really interested in running the building properly and instead just want to order people around.
JimmyT, while I agree with your advice, how would Mac prove he had attended the ECM, regardless of whether he had been allowed to address the high & mighty?
“It’s a sad fact of life that justice in this country comes at a hefty price but that only means you can say “bring it on” to anyone except for very rich hobby litigants who don’t mind losing a few bucks.But some miscreant nobody who is already on their way out of the building? Oh dear, poor little muffin wants to sue. How sad!”
Well said JimmyT. I couldn’t have put it better myself.