[hammer66]

Thanks very much for taking the time to reply and provide such detailed and sensible advice. I will be acting on it in the next couple of days and hopefully it will lead to a more transparent meeting which reflects the wishes of the majority of owners and not just a select few.

[hammer66]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the comments, particularly re the digital divide. I was hoping the website would be more inclusive and accessible for renters and owners and not act as a complete replacement for the more traditional methods of disseminating info. I did look at Stratabox but they were 10x more expensive per year (the website costs $120 per year to host) and obviously less personalised (feel free to remove at moderation to protect your sponsorship).

Also, agree about time and may change the forum page to a newsletter to reduce the level of admin required. Otherwise, it should not be too onerous.

Could you confirm that voting at AGMs can be done via a website, if the exec cttee had complete ownership of the site.

Thanks again

[hammer66]

Thanks very much, I will take this information to the other nominees and hopefully get the vote overturned.

[hammer66]

Thanks for the quick response. The chair did have a proxy for the absent nominee. However, other attendees holding proxies were not given the opportunity to vote. Should they have been?

With regards to nominations, interested parties nominated themselves, then it was decided on the number of the Cttee, then we all chose our preferred 5 candidates. As I said, only the chair was able to use proxy.

Shame as we had some young enthusiastic people who missed out. 

[hammer66]

Jimmy T/Proudsceptic/Peter C

Thanks for the great advice. I will be using a combination of your posts and will endeavour to achieve a favourable outcome not only for my mother in law but any other disabled residents in the building in the long and the short run.

I may be a bit naive but it is bizarre that an issue that should have unanimous approval becomes a complex issue with individuals being obstructive and more concerned about their own liability and well being than those less fortunate. I will post the next developments.

Thanks

[hammer66]

Thanks Jimmy. I have just received a response (copy below) from the EC via the strata manager. It seems to imply that the disability legislation does not apply. The letter states:-

“The Strata Cttee have as you have been advised been looking into your request. Firstly,  XXXXX Towers  was built in a time when residential buildings were designed without giving consideration to anyone requiring wheelchair access. You would be aware that it was 2010 when the disability Access laws were enacted. However, the Strata Cttee are able to give you written permission to use a section of common area to enable you to install a temporary ramp of a style of your choosing that will enable you to get your mother in law up and down the entry area stairs.”

It then passes the responsibility of procuring and installing the ramp over to us. They also seem to think it is feasible for my wife (53 years old) whilst looking after her mother to set up and put away the ramp every time she leaves and enters the building (daily). It should be noted that there is nowhere to safely store a ramp in the foyer area. The letter stated:-

“Due to the entry foyer being a high traffic area it will be necessary for OH&S reasons that this ramp be one that could be put down and taken up after each use so that no one trips on it leaving the owners corporation exposed to any injury proceedings.”

Finally, they want us to sign an indemnity in case of injury, which is ironic as that is why we wanted the access in the first place. The letter stated:-

“Should you wish to take up the offer of the Strata Cttee we will require that you give a written indemnity to the Owners Corporation indemnifying them against any injury that could be sustained to Mrs XXXX should the ramp collapse or the wheelchair fall off the ramp causing an injury  to her or her assistant and any claim that may be lodged against them should a person be injured by the ramp being on common property.”

Although, we have requested the access there are a number of elderly residents that may well need access in the future. It seems that we are being made personally responsible for providing access which could be used by any resident/owner. I am not sure whether to engage a specialist solicitor and take this issue straight to a tribunal as you suggested, as the ctte seem to have relinquished its responsibility.

Thanks

[hammer66]

Thanks for the info. All contact has been made via e mail to the strata manager who has passed it on to the cttee. The owner is my mother in law who is 89 and has alzheimers. My wife is her carer with power of attorney and guardianship. We live on the floor below. I am going to chase it up with the strata manager again today. I know that there have been e mail exchanges between cttee member but for some reason no one has informed me of their position. Most cttee members do not live in the building. I am a bit worried that they will just delay and discuss it at the next meeting. They have a track record of procrastinating, hence my attempt to get things moving quickly. I attended the last meeting and mentioned the problem but I do not think the ctte consider the issue important. Good to know they can be compelled to pay for it, although I hope it will not come to this.

[Author]

Replies