Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
There is nothing in the Act that says the chaior’s resignation has to be endorsed a general meeting.
Given that the committee chooses the chair by a simple majority (of the committee) and the committee can sack the chair, again by a simple majority vote, and you can’t force someone to stay if they want to go, I would have thought that a letter of resignation would be enough.
If the chair resigns from the committee as well as from the chair, the committee can elect a new member.
The committee can also sack a member if they have missed 25 per cent of meetings in a year.
Put all that together and you can see that the control of the committee is entirely in the hands of committee members. The idea that you might need a general meeting to deal with the resignation of the chair is a complete furphy.
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.
Any owner can see any document related to their strata scheme – even “sealed” legal documents. You are party to the correspondence as an owner in the scheme, regardless of the fact that you are directly involved.
Claims of privacy concerns and “commercial in confidence” issues – the usual excuses trotted out – will be BS.
Your next-door neighbour and even an absentee investor who’s never set foot in the building are entitled to see this too.
I think a polite letter to the strata manager and secretary asking for you to be sent a copy of the document (a reasonable request in these Covid-19 conditions) within the next few days, is in order.
It could also carry a warning that you are aware of your legal rights and any failure to comply will leave you no choice but to commence proceedings at Fair Trading and NCAT against both the Strata Manager and Strata Committee for failure to abide by their legal responsibilites under the Act.
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 call the meeting by the normal means.
If the meeting is inquorate (not enough in attendance or there by virtue of proxies) the chair waits for half an hour and declares the meeting quorate under various provisions in Schedule 1 of the Act.
Eg, Section 12 (4): Chairperson may be only person present
A meeting is, subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to the quorum, validly held even though the only person present at the meeting is the chairperson of the owners corporation.
Section 17 (4): Procedure if no quorum
If no quorum is present within the next half-hour after the relevant motion or business arises for consideration at the meeting, the chairperson must—
(a) adjourn the meeting for at least 7 days, or
(b) declare that the persons present either personally or by duly appointed proxy and who are entitled to vote on the motion or election constitute a quorum for considering that motion or business and any subsequent motion or business at the meeting.
In short, the chair waits half an hour then declares the meeting quorate. Votes on the sole non-procedural item on the agenda – allowing electronic voting – and moves on.
I think it’s really important for any scheme that goes down this path to make it a clean vote, only on invoking Section 28 of Schedule 1 of the Act, allowing electronic participation and voting under Section 14 and Section 15 of the Regulations.Obviously, the potential for one-person general meetings to be biased and undemocratic is huge, and would probably successfully be challenged at NCAT under any other circumstances.But pushing through a procedural vote to make it easier for people to participate and vote under the current restrictions would be unlikely to be overturned provided all the correct processes had been followed, including explaining to owners what as happening and why.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
I have removed the link as it doesn’t work for me and my antivirus software didn’t like it. Please insert it as an image.
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.
One member out of three is not a quorum for a committee meeting (but could be for an AGM).
It is not unusual for a strata manager to be delegated the powers of any or all of the office-bearer roles, although those roles can be resumed by committee members at any time by a simple majority vote in committee.
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 seems to be some creative accounting allied to a couple of misconceptions here. My guess is that the money from the case was paid either in part or entirely into the wrong fund. Rather than just declare an error, someone has decided to siphon the excess back into the admin fun, in a way that keeps levies down but doesn’t involve repaying the money raised to fight the case in the first place. I may be wrong but I think there is nothing sinister happening here, just a little bit odd.
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.
Kaindub said:
The strata act says that this situation has to be rectified within 3 months.
I only mention this because I made the same error a couple of weeks ago and was corrected offline. Section 76 (2) only says the OC must, within three months, determine the amount to be levied to repay the loan, not actually repay that loan within that timescale.
It would be very easy to see how that figure could slide around for years while the committee is recommending keeping the levies to a minimum.
And it looks very like in this case the committee/treasurer is using the capital works fund as a bank for the admin fund, and having kept levies too low in the past, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
I wonder how old this building is, because if it’s post-2016 the developer could be forced to make up the deficit if they set the levies unrealisitically low to encourage sales.
Section 76 (2) The owners corporation must, not later than 3 months after the transfer or use, determine the amount to be levied as a contribution to the fund from which the transfer or use was made to reimburse the amounts paid from the fund.
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.
Section 112 of the Act allows exclusive use of common property under the terms of an agreement approved by special resolution (just like a by-law).
This is probably the simplest solution as the agreement can be attached to the lot (so it transfers with the change of ownership) and would not involve change of ownership or recalculation of levies. It can carry any conditions that either party requires, such as an agreement that the lot owner maintains and repairs the property at their own expense, to a reasonable standard etc etc. The “rent” for the space can be indexed.
Otherwise, the purchase option requires all sorts of hidden extras, such as recalculating levies, taxes, legal fees, and so on.
The value of the purchase should be calculated, at minimum, as the added value to the apartment minus the cost of the work, including legals.
I would say, go for a permanent lease and the best way to achieve this would be to send a letter of intent in which you would lay out what you plan to do and how you plan to do it (with approvals, of course) including a commitment to cover all legal fees and the cost of a general meeting (if required) to pass the special resolution.
And with that in mind, your next call should be to a specialist strata lawyer.
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.
Taking a case to NCAT is a lottery, especially since some Members are viewing by-laws that have previously been accepted for years as now being harsh and unconscionable.
And there are other factors. Take a look at this case where the Member decided that because the Acoustic engineer did not specifically say that fitted carpet with underlay was more effective than Persian carpet in reducing noise, then areas that weren’t covered by the Persian carpet did not need to be carpeted. I know! The logic or lack thereof is baffling.
And in this case, the Member has ruled that because the building was old, the residents should not expect a level of sound insulation that would be mandatory in a new building (ignoring the fact that the sound insulation was fine before the upstairs resident ripped up the carpet and installed timber floors).
Most alarming is the fact that the Member seems to accept that the advice of the flooring supplier that 5mm insulation was “the best available” was reasonable grounds for the upstairs neighbour to proceed. Fort the record, my building insists on 11mm Regupol (rubber).
In the latter case, the by-laws simply say the flooring insulation must be sufficient to prevent the transmission of intrusive noise. The Member appears to be ruling that this is not enough and they should have included specific rules, presumably with acoustic ratings. It’s worth noting that two senior members of NCAT later rejected an application for the decision to be appealed.
However, it seems to me in your case that the upstairs owner, as a member of the committee, should have known what the by-laws were and have acted accordingly.
I don’t think it’s at all unusual for bedrooms to be treated differently than other rooms, when it comes to floor covering. But it seems this new law firm is less than fired-up about this, and that would worry me. Are they going to go in half-hearted or with all guns blazing?
I think I would be seeking a second opinion from a specialist strata lawyer with a track record in successfully pursuing cases of this nature before I settled on a compromise.
After all, the by-laws were clear, the upstairs owner should have known what they were but then chose to put down cheap flooring at your expense. A smart lawyer will line up a stack of evidence to show that separate conditions for bedrooms are standard practice and not at all “harsh or unconscionable”. Someone has to draw the line somewhere.
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’s what the Fair Trading website says:
Where a household is struggling to make rental payments and has suffered a loss of income equal to or greater than 25 per cent due to COVID-19, there is a new obligation to enter into negotiations with their landlord or managing agent, prior to seeking a forced end to the tenancy.
Tenants will be protected from eviction until NCAT is satisfied that negotiations have concluded. Any unpaid rent will accrue as arrears during this period.
So your tenant isn’t squatting, they’re just racking up rent arrears. It would be as much in their interest as yours to negotiate and, if that fails, attend mediation at Fair Trading.
Maybe then they can explain why they signed a lease that they knew they wouldn’t be able to service.
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’s rejection and rejection …
If they don’t respond, you could slow the whole process down by asking if they have planning permission (if the layout is going to change) who the builders are, who the project manager will be, whether or not they have insurance etc etc.
Or you could sit down and work out a compromise that includes a delayed start and a strict set of noisy periods when all the drilling for the day would be done. Say, 10am till 12 noon, every weekday. It’s amazing how creative and productive project managers can be when they are handed a set of restrictions, rather than blank cheques to do waht they want, as and when they please.
Any noise work outside that time would be grounds for a shut down with your electricians authorised to pull the plug, literally, on their power supply.
And that’s what you should do if they just start the work anyway, without permission, hire a Level 2 Electrician to come and pull the main fuse to that unit on the grounds that building safety was being compromised without proper oversight.
But probably just mentioning this potential sanction to the renovator will get their attention, if they start getting all “I know my rights” over this.
But the simple fact is that owners can’t mess around with common property (like ceilings) without a by-law in place.
That magnesite is common property. They shouldn’t go near it without your say so and you can get a stop-work order from NCAT if they do.
But pulling the fuse is easier, quicker and a lot cheaper.
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.
Ooops. Yes I did. Thanks. Now corrected.
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.
Residents of any building that doesn’t have a reasonable set of by-laws covering noisy work are probably regretting that right now.
Basically, TV shows like The Block are an insult to apartment residents as there is no place in unit blocks for hobby renovators.
My building does not allow any renovations at weekends, or noisy work [except] between 8 am and 5 pm. These rules are not draconian, they are common sense.
You do, however, have recourse through your right to the peacful enjoyment of your lot. Check that out and think seriously about taking action at Fair Trading, in the first instance, to try to achieve a compromise, by-laws or not.
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.
OK, so the strata manager is basing his levies calcualtion on what he was told rather than what he could have discovered if he had bothered to read the minutes? Right?
Given that it’s almost impossible to repay cash back to owners unless there is a unanimous decision to do so, the easiest way to correct this is to absorb it over the year.
And the easiest way to do that is to revert to last year’s levies for two quarters, and then increase them in the final quarter to make up any shortfall.
Right now you should be getting bills for 103% of last year’s levies, which billed quarterly, amount to 25.75 % per quarter. Instead you have been charged 105% of last year’s levies @ 26.25%.
If the SM issues levies notices for exactly the same amount as last year for the next quarter, that would give them time to recalculate on the basis of splitting the difference (25.875% of the previous year’s levies) for the last two levies.
This may make their brain hurt (I know it does mine) but then it’s probably preferable to the alternative, which would be having their contract terminated for not doing their job properly to begin 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.
You could call for another general meeting (tricky in these isolated times) at which the minutes would have to be presented. Or you could just get other owners to confirm your recollection in writing and insits that, in the absence of minutes to prove otherwise, they levies be adjusted.
Consider this, if there are no minutes to say there was only a 3 per cent rise in levies, there are also no minutes to prove it was a five per cent increase.
It’s a mess but it happens when you change strata managers – what incentive does the outgoing SM have to do the right thing when they’ve already been shown the door. Your secretary might have anticipated this and prepared his or her own version of the minutes.
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.