[Felix]

How about a boat with an outboard motor attached parked in the unit’s space?

I’m not sure if this is covered by a by-law and i don’t know if you can call the boat and outboard junk.

One breach that does come up though is the tenant parking their vehicle in the visitors parking space since they have their boat in the unit car space.

[Felix]

The 2 people who hadn’t submitted in  writing to the Managing Agent that they would be willing to serve on the EC if nominated before the AGM.

The two were nominated by other Owners present at the AGM.

The issue here is not with having the 2 people serve on the EC but rather the way the Managing Agent chaired the AGM.

There are many Owners who are dismayed by the way the AGM was conducted and this is only one of the problems.

Most Owners would like to have the meetings run properly!

[Felix]

In the past our Strata in NSW consisting of 32 units has asked the EC to have a committee of 3 interview a few potential strata managers. The 3 do not have to be members of the present EC and in fact prefer they not be on the committee as they do not have much experience in this area.

Some Owners would prefer a committee recommend a new strata manager or stick with the old before going to an annual meeting which will be occurring very shortly.

Should a motion be put before a general meeting by an individual to engage a different manager may result in the motion not being given proper consideration for various reasons.

One being different factions could go against an individual whereby if a manager has been suggested by an independent committee, the motion may be given more thought and voted on accordingly.

Unfortunately, most Owners don’t know what’s going on with the performance of the strata manager and how helpful they are to the EC and if they are advising the EC correctly.

What would you suggest under these circumstances?

[Felix]

I presume that an Owner who is appointed to act on behalf of an EC member at an ECM will also be making up a quorum in some instances.

Is that correct and can that Owner be appointed to specifically to make up a quorum?

Also, does the appointee need to have this appointment in writing and do they have to declare this before the meeting or can they just turn up?

[Felix]

I did mean Strata Manager.

However i have great difficulty in calling a Firm a Strata Manager and what we call their representative as manager looking after our Strata.

What do they call them this manager?

[Felix]

In regard to the statement that the EC does not have to make sure that the by-laws are complied with:

What is the situation where an EC has informed the strata manager to get in touch with an Owner who is violating a current by-law and to see that the by-law is carried out.   This directive is in the minutes of a recent ECM.

It is now some months later and the directive has not been carried out and the strata manager is trying to be a nice guy on their own and trying to come to a compromise between the Owner and the strata manager, who is supposed to be acting on the OC behalf.  The strata manager has advised an inexperienced EC as this is the way to go.  I must repeat that the minutes of the EC instructed the strata manager previously to see that the by-law was carried out

The strata manager informed a recent ECM that they were waiting for an opinion  from a third party tradesman on the issue.

What does a tradesman’s opinion have to do with carrying out a directive from the EC to have the Owner comply with a by-law that other Owners have been compiling with?

[Felix]

Thanks Whale. It doesn’t get any easier.

For a number of years the OC allowed putting the condensers on the balconies, which around 12 Owners have done so far and are still doing it.

Pipework has not been allowed on the outside walls and has been directed to go inside.

Can we continue this way or do we have to change or can you separate the condensers from the pipework?

[Felix]

Thanks fellas for your input.  it’s good to see the four of you involved!

Scotlandx points out that the second meeting after the original ECM was closed seems to be deliberate.

It was deliberate in order to keep out one of the visitors from knowing about their discussions and eventual decisions.

I must say that it doesn’t appear to have the best interests of the Owners at heart and I feel quite immature.  

The EC is elected to act on behalf of the Owners and transparency from the EC to the Owners is essential.

On to the next main issue:

How best to have the by-law upheld and the outside pipe work removed.

We know, as in the minutes of ECM’S of Nov. and Dec., that the managing agent was instructed to deal with the matter and instruct the Owners to have the pipework removed.

No Notice To Comply was ever issued! 

So what do you suggest for the next step, particularly after the EC and managing agent will be notified that the EC cannot make a decision on an item unless it is listed on the Agenda of the EC meeting?

Some Owners would like this issue to be sorted out ASAP without going to mediation.

[Felix]

Hi Whale:

Thanks for your comments.  i was hoping you might answer this issue.

You are asking why it was necessary to have this Special By-Law in addition to the passing of a Special Resolution granting the O/Cs consent to the Owners proposed renovations.

The answer is that the Special By-Law was resolved by the OC some 25-30 years ago whereas the Special Resolution is only coming up now.

As stated in the original comments, the O/C agreed to accept responsibility for the maintenance of the existing sliding doors, which it has done when brought to the attention of the EC or Managing Agent.

The By-Law makes no mention of the door frames.

The new Owner, who wants to renovate, wants the O/C to pay for new door and window frames,aside from the balcony sliding doors.  They give no costings, quotes, or products involved in their submission.

Some Owners find it difficult to agree to this as they feel that not enough information is provided for them to act in a prudent manner and they wonder how the EC and the Managing Agent who are acting for the O/C, can approve or agree to this proposed resolution without all facts being presented.  We must also bear in mind that if this is approved then another 29 or so units might want their frames done and where is the money to come from along with many other major projects?

The Owners realise that the magnesite problem should be paid for by the O/C but how can they act without a proper inspection from the engineer, receiving a copy of his report and recommendations.?

Some Owners have since found out that the new Owners want to vacate their premises while the samples are taken by the engineer, bearing in mind that the engineer has been suggested to the EC by the new Owner, and thus the reason for this proposed resolution for a speedy result.

You have indicated that you think the O/C should wait for the Consultants report and that is also the opinion of the Owners who voted not to accept the resolution.

The new Owners have indicated that they will amend the proposed resolution so we shall wait and see.

Unfortunately the new EC is new and except for a few, if any, are not very knowledgable on Strata law.  One would think the Strata Manager could guide them but it seems the Manager wants to keep the EC on side and not rock the boat for their own advantage.

Any further comments or suggestions would be appreciated.

[Felix]

Thanks Whale:

The issue involves the installation of an air conditioning unit where the compressor is placed on the balcony and the pipe, covered by PVC, runs up the outside wall and then through the wall to the unit inside.

The compressor is not the issue but rather the pipe covered by the PVC

A/C have been installed in other apartments before and all the piping was contained inside the units and only came out to the condenser at the bottom of the wall.

The PVC is clearly visible from the street and from other apartments on that side of the building.

A main concern, other than the removal of the recently installed pipes, is that this could lead to becoming a precedent for other Owners to follow suit and we could have pipes hanging all over the building, maybe even in different colours.

Should this piping have to be rectified, then who is responsible for the cost ?

One would have thought that the EC would have had some guidance from the SM.

Then again, how would other Owners know what was involved in the request to the EC for this installation and if the installation followed what was submitted!

All of this is aside from the problem of voting electronically.

[Felix]

I would like to reply to Jimmy’s statement about challenging the validity of a vote at a AGM or EGM.

Do you have to bring it up to the SM , if they are chairing, before the vote is taken or can you challenge after the vote.

It could be that the vote taken is in agreement with what you’d like to see done and there is no reason to challenge and save it for another day.

On the other hand one would want to challenge if it would change the outcome adversely.

[Felix]

 

I am a member of the EC currently and have been an ECM on and off over the years and a former Sec. of the EC.

There is no question that the fault lies with the Sec. and unfortunately no help is forthcoming from the SM.

I agree that the EC should keep the Sec. in check and work as a team.

It’s pretty hard to do when other ECM seem not to be interested and don’t want to rock the boat.

[Felix]

 

Thanks All for your comments.

The Sec. is a new Sec. who thinks he runs the show on his own and slight variations to the actual proceedings have been included in all his minutes.

In this last case in question the main items in the motion are included in the minutes correctly but off to one side he slyly adds 2 words which virtually exonerates him from what the motion on the Agenda was all about.

That motion had to do with the Sec. authorising paying out a large amount of money on his own and not consulting the other ECM for their discussion and approval.

[Felix]

A FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION WAS DONE A MONTH OR TWO AGO BUT 2 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS WERE NOT INSPECTED AND TAGGED AND IN FACT THEY HAVEN’T BEEN INSPECTED FOR A FEW YEARS.

THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EC AND THE STRATA MANAGER AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT IT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST AS THE NEXT STEP?

[Felix]

When I suggested free drinks and nibbles, I meant to add available at the conclusion of the AGM.

I also agree that Peter C’s comment about changing the colour scheme would be sure to get a reaction from small to medium size stratas. 

[Author]

Replies