Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Given the recent example of a Strata Manager extracting ~$2 million from ~60 stratas over ~400 transactions, I looked at our portal
Just to let you know, I merged two similar threads here. JimmyT
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.
Some strata schemes, in an effort to make it easier for inconsequential bills to be paid but keep a tight rein on finances, put a limit on the amount their strata managers can spend without prior approval.
And, believe it or not, schemes that set the limit at, say, $300 are often astonished to discover how many services cost $295.
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.
Strata committee members have a huge amount of leeway to make mistakes provided they do so in good faith. What “in good faith” means is open to debate and interpretation but if they were ever told they couldn’t or shouldn’t do something, then that might be considered lacking the good faith required.
As an owner, you could pursue the strata scheme and strata manager to reinstate the trees and shrubs, and the current regime might consider pursuing the former committee members to cover the cost. Or you could report your OC to the council and hope the trickle-down effect works on the miscreants.
But there is no direct method that I can think of that would see the plants reinstated and the people responsible forced to pay.
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.
How about you get the adjoining strata scheme to issue an invoice for your scheme’s share of the fence works?
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.
There should be a warning given to the miscreant, or more than one, which needs to be documented, and the response considered.
I’m okay with one warning but there is a myth that you have to issue three. A Notice to Comply IS a warning and I can’t find anything in the Act that says there has to be a written warning beforehand. That said, procedurally, a warning followed by an NTC would look better at a tribunal. However, I have seen tribunals reject NTCs because the tenant said they weren’t aware of the by-law, even though their landlord had provided a copy and the by-law they had breached was listed on the NTC (as it must be).
I would pass a motion at committee level insisting that breaches should generate one warning (and only one) then a Notice To Comply. Remember, you don’t get to the Tribunal stage until after the NTC has been issued then ignored.
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.
Whatever the strata management contracts says, and whatever the intent is, it can’t over-ride strata law. That means that as long as you scheme follows the law, there can be no comeback when you find a new strata manager and get rid of this current one.
By the way, the contract may have been written before the new laws came in so it may be an accident rather than a deliberate attempt to subvert the legislation.
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 best guide you will get to future expenditure is to compare buildings of a similar size and facilities that are maybe four or five years older. That said there are so many variables, from the quality of the original work to where the installation sits in the building and the effect of prevailing weather that you are never going to get 100 per cent accuracy.
Regarding whether or not you include GST in the quotes, it sounds like the surveyors are trying to minimise the cost assessment in every way possible. Since GST is unlikely to change any time soon, I’d include it.
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 Bannerman article is pretty comprehensive but raises issue about control of the scheme as well as the allocated levies. In this case, as well as paying more, the townhouse owners have greater voting power and the Tribunal might not want to upset the balance.
One option might (an I stress might) be to get 75 per cent of owners to agree to extinguish the existing scheme and create two new schemes under a Community Title arrangement. I don’t know how feasible that is and it strikes me that it’s going to be hard to get the apartment owners to agree to any changes as they will result in legal costs followed by increased levies on a permanent basis. You can’t get turkeys to vote for Christmas.
One option might be to pass by-laws isolating apartment-only payments from townhouse-only payments. Either way, speak to an experienced strata lawyer to explore the feasibility and costs of any options.
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.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The issue with the wall is clearly a case of changing common property without the correct permissions. You could explain to your committee that you have the option to take them to the Tribunal to resolve the situation if they don’t tell the builder to fix it or compensate you for the loss.
The fact that this is extra work for the builder is not your problem.
Regarding the tenant, if they demand a rent reduction, negotiate a reasonable figure and then charge that back to the strata scheme. It might be better to involve a third party like a real estate agent or a Fair Trading mediator, if only to establish that the figure is reasonable. I have heard of landlords encouraging their tenants to take them to Fair Trading, just to establish a figure that the strata scheme can’t easily reject.
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 is covered by section 50 of the Act which basically allows the maximum three-year contract to be rolled over three months at a time, in the absence of a strata scheme’s decision to terminate or renew. Once you are in the roll-over period, you have to give the manager one month’s notice of a decision to terminate. It is designed to ensure schemes have a manger in place even when the maximum term is up and they haven’t got round to re-appointing or choosing a new one. These roll-overs can’t extend beyond the next 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.
You could calculate the unexpected expenditure on repairs (not defects) over the past five years, average it out and add 5 per cent, then factor that into your budgets.
The chairman of a building I know well used to announce at every AGM that “there is no slush fund” until I pointed out he was defaming his predecessors by implying they had been finagling the finances. Also they eventually, inevitably needed an emergency payment. They now have a “contingency” fund which, of course, is a slush fund by any other name.
If you announce your plan at your next AGM, the owners can decide whether or not they want a contingency fund or would rather pay special levies as they arose.
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.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The only situation I would be concerned is if the admin funds became ridiculous.
Worth remembering that excess funds can only be returned to owners (in NSW) if there is a unanimous vote (as in, no votes against) to do so.
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.
As detailed in this post, you could put up a motion to a general meeting or committee meeting that the committee or strata manager be instructed to pursue any owner for specific breaches of by-laws.
If they fail to do so, Section 232(2)(e) of the Act allows owners to take action against the owners corporation (or committee) for “an exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function conferred or imposed by or under this Act or the by-laws of a strata scheme.”
This is something you would have to pursue yourself or in conjunction with other aggrieved owners. There are no StrataKops who will do this for you.
That said, the simple act of applying for mediation as a precursor to an action under Section 232 would probably have a galvanising effect when the facts of strata life are laid out for all concerned.
Meanwhile, Section 35 of the Act allows a simple majority of owners at a general meeting to remove a committee member from the committee.
Section 45 of the Act allows a simple majority of committee members to sack an office-bearer by declaring an “office” vacant and electing a new member to fulfil that office (but they can remain as committee members).
Section 238 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to remove a committee member at its discretion or at the request of an owner or owners.
Bear in mind that any or all of these could have the effect of
1. Making the owners and committee members aware of their responsibilities and
2. A declaration of war.
However, if the committee’s argument is that they don’t want to do anything because it might cost the scheme legal expense, that excuse evaporates as soon as you say “I’m taking you to the Tribunal anyway”. It’s the old argument of, do the right thing and get on with it, or be forced to and pay the additional expenses of trying not to, but have to do it anyway when you lose.
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.
1 user thanked author for this post.