[g]

@Paul Morton said:
I’ve used these aps on an Android phone. I compared 3 aps and their readings differed by 20 decibels! They’ll be useful for owners wanting an initial handle on a problem and to get a discussion started. Anything more would require the independence and professionalism of a qualified third party.
paul@lannock.com.au

To increase a reading by 20 decibels you would increase the sound pressure levels 100 times. That is a ridiculous amount of error!

I have a little bit of knowledge in this area and have always assumed that those apps would be pretty useless, however your 20dB difference has blown me away.

I disagree with you, these apps aren’t useful for getting an “initial handle” on a problem, and I would be very unhappy if someone wanted to start a discussion based on such readings (I would stubbornly refuse to put any stock in the readings).

 

 

[g]

@Felix said:
We realize that the Strata Schemes Management Act does not have legislation dealing with the use of Skype at EC , EGM, and AGM meetings

Skype has been used at our EC meetings but it is my understanding that it may not be used at EGM’s and AGM’s.

Our AGM is chaired by our Strata Managing Agent.

What does an Owner do if another Owner attempts to use Skype at a AGM?

If the Managing Agent is going to allow it does one tell him that it is not legal and that the meeting will be null and void, if that is the case if Skype is used?

How does one prevent the use of Skype being used at the AGM if it becomes necessary?

Why would Skype (or any other form of telepresence) not be allowed at an AGM? Surely there would have been some precedent set for this by now… Has anyone had an AGM with someone on speakerphone before?

I’m not familiar with what strata law has to say about the conditions that have to be met to be considered to be “present” at a meeting (I am guessing that it leaves this fairly open) so as long as they’ve met any conditions (if there are any) then there shouldn’t be any issue with the validity of the meeting and voting. Unless there is a problem verifying their identity.

[g]

Scotlandx, This isn’t to do with bylaws affecting new owners, I think this has much more to do with bylaws not being able to overrule state law.

 

There was a time when wheelclamping on private property was common. Property owners would put up a sign, or have some other mechanism of implied consent allowing them to put clamps on. There were all sorts of problems with difficulties in getting the clamps removed, with extortionate fees being demanded and unreasonable delays. This resulted in numerous complaints, some resulting in violence and other escalation, and many episodes of trashy current affairs shows were dedicated to the issue. Eventually the government legislated against these practices (in 1998 for NSW, I think).

 

My understanding is that the reference to “with consent” was included to allow people to use wheel clamps to secure their own vehicles against theft (eg, caravans, boat trailers, etc).

 

It doesn’t surprise me that you have this response from Fair Trading when trying to interpret “with consent” in order to do precisely what the law was designed to prevent.

 

Obviously nobody is questioning that they shouldn’t be parking there. The issue here is that State law essentially prohibits using wheel clamping as a punishment and a strata bylaw is unable to override it (one would assume that offenders would not consent to being punished).

 

Interestingly, my employer still uses wheel clamps. They justify it with a big sign at the entrances and only clamping after several warnings and only where they have no idea who the owner is. They also remove the clamps immediately when asked (24 hour on-site security, and the response is fast), and don’t charge for this, so nobody has bothered making a complaint. However, with strata parking… You only have to get one person who is inconvenienced and/or vindictive and you will end up with a complaint, and I believe the fine is $300 for clamping plus a further $300 for not releasing it immediately without charge.

 

But then again, I’m not a lawyer so I could be completely wrong (although I won’t be the one to test it).

[Author]

Replies