Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
By the way, under proposals currently being promoted by Fair Trading, if you haven’t forced the builder to fix the defects in your block, Fair Trading will be able to take you to NCAT to get orders compelling you to fix them, possibly at your owners’ expense.
That law could come in just when your warranties are running out, so you maybe better get cracking.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
My concern is that once they check the whole building they find too much problems and that will be on file devaluating all the unit prices.
The worst thing you can do is identify problems then not get them fixed as both of these will be on record somewhere. Savvy purchasers will look at records of work done and feel more reassured than if they see a building that needs work but where nothing has been repaired.
I would follow the strata manager’s advice to get the building properly surveyed then get your claim in while you can. By the way, waterproofing is considered a major defect. If the builder drags their heels, take it to Fair Trading as they are much more active in this area than they used to be.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
You are hardly a dinosaur. For others (like me) who didn’t even realise there was such a thing, if you go to the sub-form headings you will see two columns, one headed “replies”, the other, “voices”. The former reflects the number of replies to posts made in each topic, the latter refers to the number of Flatchatters who posted those replies. Thus, in a heated discussion between two contributors, you might have 20 replies but only two voices.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
At AGM’s nobody ever turns up except myself. Is it an issue?
Your problem might arise if someone accused you of making decisions, especially ones they didn’t like, without proper authority. But I think as long as you have an agenda and the (non-)meetings are properly notified and constituted, you’d be OK.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I suggest you look into whether … your scheme’s situation rises to the level of being “dysfunctional”.
I suspect it’s not the scheme that’s dysfunctional – just one owner who throws their weight around and makes life unpleasant for everyone else because they have to keep turning up to vote against him/her.
My solution would be to pass a by-law that any communications directly with the strata manager (rather than the secretary), or demands on their time, should be charged back to the owner concerned, unless the committee agrees it was for the benefit of the the whole strata community.
The bully will refuse to pay, they will then be “unfinancial” and they won’t have a vote at the EGM. I hasten to add, such a by-law might not be strictly legal – it would have to be tested – but it might put a few banana skins under the bully.
Otherwise, the chair can just rule the motions out of order under Section 19 of the act (below). A less diligent adherent to strata law might rule all motions out of order and when the bully complains, say “take it to NCAT.”
If the bully gets litigious and takes the strata scheme to NCAT, just let him/her run up legal fees but make sure costs are not awarded. You might even agree to hold another EGM to discuss the issues, to halt the NCAT action, then do the same.
Rinse and repeat.
As a long-term solution, consider having the Unit Entitlements reallocated to “better reflect current values in the block” and get him/her below 25%.
19 Chairperson may rule certain motions out of orderThe chairperson at a meeting may rule a motion out of order if—
(a) the chairperson considers that the motion, if carried, would conflict with this Act or the by-laws of the strata scheme or would otherwise be unlawful or unenforceable, or
(b) any requirement of this Act to include the form of the motion in the notice of the meeting has not been complied with.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I wonder how this is shown in invoices or quotes? Perhaps it should be mandatory for all invoices and quotes to be accessible on the “owner’s portal”.
If the portal is protected by passwords and accessible only to lot owners, there is no reason financial documents such as invoices shouldn’t be available. Propose a motion for your next committee meeting or AGM.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I’ve just been reminded that the ratings will be done independently by the credit ratings firm Equifax, not by Fair Trading.
Also, Fair Trading’s view clearly is that market pressure will be at least as effective as compulsion. Once all the good developers are rated, an unrated developer will be viewed the same as a developer who applied for a rating and failed. That should not only be a red flag to consumers but will attract additional scrutiny from the regulator.
As we heard at the seminar, having a rating could become a condition of bank lending and development approval. The developers will then be under a lot of pressure to apply for a rating, otherwise they are signalling that they are not up to scratch.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I wonder how effective the law/suggestion to strata managers and fire safety companies would be that the “finder of problems” cannot be the “fixer of problems found”.
Sounds good in theory , but we know it would take a five-minute phone call between dodgy inspectors to organise mutual back-scratching.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Here is the definitive response from Fair Trading. NB, it says: “Clause 10 of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) provides that ballot papers for strata committees must be used to collect certain information to ensure a valid vote is cast.” So your verbal vote was definitely not OK. Here’s the advice from Fair Trading.
Meetings and voting via Zoom is valid
Zoom can be used by owners corporations to conduct meetings and as a means of voting at meetings of the owners corporation. Elections for the committee can also be conducted by electronic means, including by Zoom. The outcome of resolutions approved at those meetings and of elections conducted via Zoom and otherwise notified and held in accordance with the law would be valid.
The use of Zoom can be enabled through a resolution under clause 14(1)(a) of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016. However, use of Zoom can now also occur without a resolution due to the COVID-19 provisions under clause 70.
Pre-meeting electronic voting cannot be used for elections
Clause 10 of the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) provides that ballot papers for strata committees must be used to collect certain information to ensure a valid vote is cast. The Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 and the Regulation allow for electronic voting to be used on any matter to be voted on at a meeting of the owners corporation and this includes the election of committees, so the ‘ballot paper’ referred to in the law could take an electronic form.
It will be valid so long as the owners corporation collects the information required by clause 10(3) of the Regulation for the contents of ballot papers, which includes:
- the name of the candidates being voted for,
- the capacity in which the voter is exercising their right to vote (lot owner, by proxy etc), and
- if the vote is cast by proxy – the name and capacity of the person who gave the proxy.
However, the Regulation does not allow pre-meeting electronic voting to be used for the purposes of electing a committee.
Reasonable steps must be taken to ensure lot owners can participate in and vote at electronic meetings
The COVID-19 temporary measures contained in clause 70 of the Regulation allow owners corporations to use electronic voting even if a resolution authorising its use has not been passed. In using this power the secretary of the owners corporation, or the managing agent, must take reasonable steps necessary to ensure that each lot owner can participate in and vote at the meeting.
Statutory review recommends permanent adoption of electronic voting
A report on the statutory review of the strata laws was tabled in Parliament on 29 November 2021. The review recommends the use of electronic voting become generally available without a prior resolution of the owners corporation being required, but that pre-meeting electronic voting would still require a resolution of the owners corporation before being used. The review also recommends that meeting procedures set out in the strata laws be revised to ensure they are clear, including on the use of electronic means of meeting and voting.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
We now have a couple of new owners willing to join the committee and so we are looking at ways to enable this to happen. Looks like an EGM might be the way to go using the excuse that the AGM did not follow protocol.
It’s entirely procedural because the committee’s decisions can always be overturned by the owners at a general meeting anyway. But having a committee that’s more aligned with the general feelings of the owners as a whole can only help.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
The strata manager accepted an oral nomination from this proxy representing the fourth lot. This decision was challenged as per sec 31, but the strata manager refused the challenge and defended her decision based on history and sec 9.
For the uninitiated, Section 31 of the NSW Act details who can be nominated for election and how. Section 9 establishes the collective rights and responsibilities of all owners to make decisions about the scheme.
This election is actually even less kosher than you thought. The strata manager should not have accepted the self-nomination of the co-owner as co-owners can only be nominated by the other co-owner.
So, legally, this election is all over the place. But is it wrong?
Your strata manager has clearly thought that having all owners involved is going to be a better way of running the building than having two owners shut out of decision-making for a year. Of course, those owners could call for general meetings to air any grievances, so why not just include them from the get-go, so that every committee meeting is a bit like an EGM?
Did the SM follow the law? No. Would a Tribunal overturn the election. Probably not as they would want to see who had suffered in any way because of the informal nature of the election.
For what it’s worth, I think your SM’s efforts to be inclusive are laudable, even if she went about it the wrong way.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Hi, the response I got from a Fair Trading officer at the seminar last week was that an email with a list of nominees that you could check off was valid. The verbal vote you experienced seems to contradict just about everything in the Act and I would question its validity. The SM certainly can’t require you to vote for five people. I got into an argument with the FT guy about the lack of clear guidance on this on their website. I have contacted them again for further clarification. Expecting a call back today.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
This depends very much on the management firm concerned. Some may say no on the simple basis that every other key that goes out diminishes the security of the whole building.
Some may charge you a hefty returnable deposit, some may charge you a fee. The thing is, there is no strata or rental law regarding this. If you have a key to the building and your flat, all obligations have been met.
Some might suspect you are sub-letting on airbnb and send you packing.
But if you are genuinely worried about losing your key, simple solution – get a keychain that attaches to your belt, like this one
or this one
… and relax.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
I don’t know why anyone would do that anyway.
I’m trying to recall, but I think the seat was being kept open for someone who was a friend of the chair and was buying into the building but hadn’t settled before the AGM.
Or it was being held for someone who was divisive and polarising within the strata scheme and would not have survived an open vote at the AGM.
Or both. Or maybe it was one of my fever-dream strata nightmares.
In any case, it looks like it would be illegal now and probably was back then too.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
No, I have not gone down the lawyer road. I am batting for the OC yet it is they who, through the Chair – no meetings for authority – have lawyer-ed up to oppose my claims. I have tried not to get personal at all and this may have been my biggest mistake. I am almost certain the details of this have not gone outside of the (3) SC and two of them may not know the real situation.
It strikes me that if you were to inform other owners that they are paying lawyer bills to defend an illegal change to common property that benefits only the two owners who organised it, and leaves all the other owners liable for any future problems with the building, they might wake up and support you.
People respond to the hip pocket nerve being tweaked. Tell the other owners to demand that the hole-in-the-wall gang don’t use OC money to defend their illegal renos.
And then persuade them to either instruct the lot owners to restore the damages walls or pay for a by-law taking responsibility for the changes they have made.
In a building near us, a couple of owners had persuaded the committee that they should be allowed to build an enclosed room on their terrace, with zero consideration for the people immediately above.
It was on the point of being approved by a EGM with the chair’s tacit support when the affected neighbours did a leaflet drop. The other owners in the building reacted so strongly that the plan was withdrawn before the meeting.
Asking reasonable people to behave reasonably isn’t so hard. All you need is the signatures of 25 per cent of owners to call a general meeting. That meeting will have two items on the agenda. Stop the legal action and demand a by-law or restoration of common property.
You might also consult our sponsors Strata Answers for their (paid) advice on how to proceed. Perhaps you can get a future, renovator-free committee to refund you the relatively modest cost.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.