[Fey Knows]

Yes, thanks, that seems to be so in NSW too, but surely it should expressed as a proper motion with the proposed person’s name in the motion shouldn’t it? 

An Office of Fair Trading summary of what the NSW Act says is “The position can be filled by having a member of the owners corporation fill the vacancy in an ‘acting capacity’. This is generally the easiest solution as it can be done by passing a motion by the executive committee.”

[Fey Knows]

How can this be, Lady Penelope, it doesn’t sound right?

I haven’t looked at the case you reference but it seems very clear, because you mention the ‘common property is not only exclusive use but also by the by-laws to be maintained by the lot owner’, that the lot owner should pay under both the old Act and the new Act. 

[Fey Knows]

Thanks JimmyT

Reading this from the Act you kindly pasted in, I wonder if an Exclusive Use By-Law which doesn’t ‘provide for maintenance of [Common] property’ might be invalid if it says nothing about who has to maintain the area.

144 Common property rights by-law must provide for maintenance of property

The By-Law being proposed where I am, doesn’t mention the Owners Corporation or those who will be granted Exclusive Use needing to ‘provide maintenance’.

[Author]

Replies