Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
There seems to be considerable confusion here. Section 184 refers to the certificate that the strata scheme or manager must supply to prospective buyers. It does indeed refer to the capital expenditure estimates (among many other things) and whether or not they are funded.But here’s my problem with this. The Act requires that you have a capital expenditure estimate for 10 years, not 15 (see section 74, below) , and that while you MAY review it every year, you are only required to review it every five years. Also Section 81 (also below) requires the strata scheme to fund the estimates.You don’t say how many units you have in the block but $284k sounds a lot. It’s probably too late to do anything this year but BEFORE your next AGM you could lobby other owners to demand a revision of the plan to 10 years and to leave funds in there to cover that. You would have to do this long before the AGM to give the SM the chance to revise his figures. This is something you could and should raise with the committee in the interim.FYI, even if you could get an EGM called and have the 15-year plan pegged back, you would not be able to retrieve the excess funds as that would require a unanimous vote and you probably aren’t going to get that.74 Capital works fund
(1) Establishment of fundAn owners corporation must establish a capital works fund.
(2) Amounts payable to fundAn owners corporation must pay the following amounts into the capital works fund:
(a) the contributions levied on, and paid by, owners for payment into the fund,
(b) any amounts paid to the owners corporation by way of discharge of insurance claims, unless paid into the administrative fund,
(c) any amounts paid to the owners corporation under Part 11,
(d) any amount received by the owners corporation that is not required or permitted to be paid into the administrative fund,
(e) the proceeds of any investment of the fund.
(3) An owners corporation may also pay the following amounts into the capital works fund:
(a) any income of the owners corporation,
(b) any amount that may be, but is not required to be, paid into the fund under this Act.
(4) Amounts payable from fundAn owners corporation may pay money from its capital works fund only for the following purposes:
(a) payments of the kind for which estimates have been made under section 79 (2),
(b) payments made in accordance with this Division on a distribution of a surplus in the fund,
(c) payments of amounts for the purposes of Part 11,
(d) the transfer of money to the administrative fund or to pay expenditure that should have been paid from the administrative fund.
(5) ExemptionAn owners corporation for a strata scheme comprising 2 lots need not establish a capital works fund if:
(a) the owners corporation so determines by unanimous resolution, and
(b) the buildings comprised in one of those lots are physically detached from the buildings comprised in the other lot, and
(c) no building or part of a building in the strata scheme is situated outside those lots.
81 Owners corporation to set contributions to administrative and capital works funds(1) The owners corporation must determine the amounts to be levied as a contribution to the administrative fund and the capital works fund to raise the amounts estimated as needing to be credited to those funds.
(2) That determination must be made at the same meeting at which those estimated amounts are determined.
(3) The owners corporation must levy on each person liable for it such a contribution.
(4) If the owners corporation is subsequently faced with other expenses it cannot at once meet from either fund, it must levy on each owner of a lot in the strata scheme a contribution to the administrative fund or capital works fund, determined at a general meeting of the owners corporation, in order to meet the expenses.
(5) A contribution is, if an owners corporation so determines, payable by the regular periodic instalments specified in the determination setting the amount of the contribution.
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.
@Erte said:
I’m interested in this general topic too. My building is small (six owners, four of whom are also residents) and we have a strata manager.I’m a total newbie to all this. But it does seem to me that a strata manager (who might never see the building from one month to the next) would not be well placed to know what needed to be done and so perhaps must be alerted by owners who are.
It sounds like yours is one of the many schemes where the owners have delegated all the strata committee functions to the strata manager. This should not mean, however, that the committee ceases to function.
The best way to approach this may be to arrange an informal meeting to discuss what the majority of owners want to do in the future and to canvass the idea of undertaking the smaller tasks (like re-stringing the Hills Hoist) yourselves.
This way, you can keep things up to scratch just by the occasional chat over a cup of tea, or an informal ring-around, and then ask the strata manager (or not) to do what needs to be done.
This is not what’s laid out in strata law, but it’s simple, effective and efficient and only becomes a problem when someone objects – and that’s when you start having formal meetings to ratify your majority decisions.
Obviously, there are limits to what you can decide informally but most things in the day-to-day running of a scheme would be covered.
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.
@Erte said:
Is this a matter I should raise in advance of the strata EGM or at the meeting itself? Should I communicate my concern to the strata manager or is that “not their job”?It certainly is the strata manager’s job, if only because they seem to be acting as the strata scheme’s secretary.
Raising your issues before the meeting gives the applicant the chance to address the problems and offer remedies. It also will lower their potential frustration at feeling they have been ambushed.
However, they need to know that an AGM or EGM isn’t an automatic rubber stamp. The decision has to be properly considered and evaluated. In a small scheme you only need the support (or proxy) from one or two other owners to make sure this proposal doesn’t go through “on the nod”.
And yes, you are entitled to ask about the model of the heater, its position, size, colour and how it will look from outside. You and your fellow owners are under no obligation to allow the cheapest option.
Talk to your strata manager about your concerns before the meeting.
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.
@Flame Tree said:
wners should be asked was the job done right and works not paid for until all is good, with a register in place so new committee members have quick access as to who did what and when and how much, and vendors can be called back to fix stuff within a reasonable time.I believe Stratabox offers that kind of feedback and database set-up.
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.
Having just defamed tradies and caretakers, I have to confess there is another aspect to this. Managers are supposed to check whether their tradies are licensed and insured. This takes time and therefor money so it’s easier to have a list of known quantities than have to start from scratch with every job.
And, yes, there may be a few inducements along the way 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.
I am told – and it’s only hearsay – that it is commonplace for caretakers in Queensland to expect “commissions” from tradies they employ. So that would be my first question – “do you take kickbacks” followed by “how many quotes did you get” and “can we see them”?
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.
Yes, the audit is likely to recommend the “Rolls Royce” option of bringing everything up to maximum fire safety, way beyond compliance, especially if they are going to be involved in the improvements.
I would be looking for three figures based on minimum permissible compliance, compliance plus a margin for safety, and absolute top of the line optimum safety.
You might find the difference between the first and last figures quite dramatic.
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.
@est tog said:
If I was to miss an important notice because I wasn’t checking my physical mail box, do you think it’s fair I pay a fee to cover the cost of a rescheduled call out fee? How can I argue this?Wouldn’t it be easier to check your mailbox?
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.
@Puddn said:
Just so you know, at a recent NCAT hearing, the member determined that ‘excluding’ voting options from (say) non-residents, would not stand up to a challenge.I don’t doubt it. But I think this is an area of the law that could with a tweak, based on the real experiences of people who have lived in strata rather than junior policy wonks who still live with their parents in a McMansion.
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 owners corporation or strata committee have the right to enter and inspect your home for the purpose of repairing common property and/or determining if such repairs are necessary.
However, if you refuse entry, they have to get orders from NCAT to enforce that right.
I can see the wisdom of them taking pictures of any problem areas, as that would assist with getting an estimate of the cost of required repairs if a large number of units are involved.
However, if this is all because they suspect you have done something to common property without permission, this takes on a slightly more sinister aspect.
But one way or another, you can be required to allow access to them and be fined if you refuse AND be liable for damages if they have to force entry when they have a legitimate order from NCAT and you still refuse access.
So the question is, why don’t you want them in your home and how badly are you prepared to block access?
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.
@Lady Penelope said:
From my understanding of the Act the word ‘may’ indicates that it is an optional provision. The Act would say ‘must’ if it was mandatory.That’s one interpretation, for sure. There is a difference between “may” and “must”.
But in this context – specifically your suggestion of a by-law that says no nominations could be made at the meeting – that would change “may” to “may not” and would therefore be in conflict with the Act (IMHO).
By the way, I think there is a lot of window dressing in the Act that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.
For instance, how can the law give ordinary owners the right to attend strata committee meetings and yet also allow “paper” or online meetings where owners can’t actually attend?
And yes, electronic voting is one very effective way around the proxy problem but I think it should be restricted to non-resident owners. Otherwise the existing very poor levels of engagement will only get worse.
I recently heard about a block of 300 units where only three owners turned up for the 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.
@Lady Penelope said:
… the OC could adopt a Motion requiring that owners are nominated and seconded for committee membership … prior to the AGM … and that no nominations can be accepted from the floor of the meeting.That wouldn’t fly as it would be in contravention of Section 30 (5) of the Act which says: “Nomination for election as a member of a strata committee … may be made before or at the meeting at which the election is held.”
Also, there is no requirement for a seconder in NSW for either agenda motions or nominations for election.
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.
@Lady Penelope said:
Voting for the election of office bearers must not be by this method [electronic voting] due to the fact that nominations may come from the floor of the meeting.In NSW, the committee, once it has been elected, votes for the office-bearers.
However, Section 41 (4) of the Act is a bit confusing: “Nomination for election as an officer of the owners corporation may be made before or at the meeting at which the election is held.”
But I am pretty sure the meeting referred to here is the meeting of the committee at which they elect office-bearers, rather than the meeting of the OC at which they elect the 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.