Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Mrs Kravitz said:
Unfortunately, one solution cannot fit all situations. If a committe is stacked and biased to favour the interests of one or a few individuals (which comes about through multiple ownership by one person in a large strata scheme and low turnout by absentee owners), then vexacious may simply mean representing a different point of view.I couldn’t agree more. I just took the phrase “does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block” at face value.
I have seen the same “vote for our ticket” system used to exclude people from ECs who might have had a contribution to make. Hell, it’s been used to keep me off my building’s EC, albeit with the help of a bumper crop in the proxy harvest.
But remove great swathes of proxies from the picture (as will happen next year) and a little bit of political planning can go a long way to get rid of bad apples. And don’t forget, the good guys are able to mount their own campaigns, with their own tickets, if they want.
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.
@PMC2 said:
Hi Jimmy,I am actually very surprised by your advice because somebody on the flat-chat forum has ‘alleged’ a resident as ‘vexacious’. After everything the Hon Mr. Anthony Roberts discussed regarding proxy votes etc. I cannot applaud the inference that 1 person can “decide the number of people you want on your executive committee” by issuing a “ticket”!
This is a democratic system you are detailing but correct me if I am wrong, have you just outlined a way for somebody to control a strata scheme using a pre-meditated solution?
OK, let me stop you right there. What is the problem with doing a little forward planning to deal with a recurring problem? And it’s not one person deciding – but somebody has to put the suggestion on the table for others to consider and agree upon (or otherwise). I merely recommended that anyone in this situation seeks the support of their co-owners – including the other people on the ticket, of course – to deal with a problem that is causing distress and dysfunction in their committee.
We are not talking about “blind” proxies here. We are talking about a considered and widely discussed strategy that can only be achieved by the consensus of the a majority of owners.
The reason you restrict the number of seats to the people on the ticket is so that the disruptive member doesn’t get on the committee by default – if the number of candidates equals the number of seats then there is no election and your vaunted democratic principles evaporate. It’s all too easy for people who don’t have to deal with people like this to give them a sympathy vote, so you have to be organised about this.
You have clearly never had to endure a year of executive committee meetings disrupted by one person who thinks that whenever their view doesn’t prevail they are entitled to rant and rave and act in a way that is anything but democratic.
Of course, the open and honest way to deal with this would be for each of the people who have suffered at the hand of this person to stand up at the AGM and describe this person’s behaviour in detail, asking people not to vote for them. In the meantime you have pretty much destroyed their credibility in the community (not to mention the social and psychological effects that might have).
If you could just step off your high horse for a second, I’d love to hear your suggestions for a solution that actually works when you have a person who dominates meetings regardless of the effect that has on the other owners in his or her community, or indeed, the community itself.
And as for wrapping yourself in the Australian flag and sticking up for the “rights of citizens”, what about the rights of the majority to decide how they want the business of their community to be conducted – e.g. in a civil and constructive manner? There is no fraud on the minority when an informed majority decided its had enough of the shenanigans of one owner.
PMC2 said
‘nugalbags’, if this resident has done anything illegal, you can apply to CTTT to have them removed as an executive committee member. I advise against plotting to remove them. It can only end up costing the Owners Corporation if you get found out… especially if a Compulsory Strata Manager is installed.
This is misleading nonsense. You don’t have to be a criminal to disrupt the workings of an owners corporation. And where in the Act does it allow an adjudicator to dismiss an EC member for their behaviour? Even if there were such a provision, can you imagine the extended disruption to community life while evidence was gathered and argued to and fro.
This whole statement is factually incorrect and, I suspect, mischievous in its intent. This is about individual behaviour and its consequences and there is nothing to be ‘found out’ about anyone taking what is a somewhat political but, in the circumstances, very pragmatic course of action.
This is exactly the kind of action that senior people in Fair Trading have (privately) suggested in the past as a way of dealing with disruptive committee members. There is nothing illegal, immoral or actionable about it.
In the real world of strata – with really disruptive people and real bullies – sometimes the “citizens” have to be a bit smarter than imagining that all the have to do is raise an objection at the CTTT and their problems will be magically resolved. Anyone who has ever taken even a watertight case to the CTTT will testify to naivety of that belief.
In fact, the strictly correct way to remove a member of an EC is to hold a general meeting and pass a special resolution to declare their seat vacant. How much easier is it to take the opportunity afforded by the AGM and get the majority of people to agree beforehand that one person’s proven unacceptable behaviour is intolerable and save everyone – including the miscreant – the personal grief and extended agony of either being publicly humiliated or trying to get a 75 percent vote at another time.
The chances of a widely agreed and perfectly legitimate pre-emptive strike against a disruptive EC member leading to the statutory appointment of a strata manager are less than zero. Do you have any knowledge or experience of strata law at all? This smacks of scaremongering.
By the way, common law has nothing to do with this – it only applies when there are no other laws covering an issue. I suggested nothing that isn’t adequately covered by strata law.
So, please, next time, actually read what I have written before you come on here and attack me personally. And get your facts right before you start issuing advice about what people should do and the consequences of their actions.
By all means, cite one case – just one – that proves you are right and I am wrong and I will publish it here along with an apology and a retraction.
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.
@nugalbags said:
Hello, We have an upcoming AGM. At which time we will be receiving nominations and signing people up for for the coming years EC. One vexacious resident who has often been on the committee before, is not only unhelpful and does nothing in way shape or form; she goes out of her way to be difficult and to block or derail any attempts to get things done around the block.Question: If they are “nominated” for the EC, is there anyway to have a “No” vote and therefore not have them on the EC? Thanks in advance, N
The process is actually quite straightforward.
There is a legal obligation to have a motion to decide the number of people you want on your executive committee. Make sure you have a “ticket” that includes everybody you want on the EC and nobody you don’t. Set the number of seats on the EC to accommodate the poeple on your ticket and no one else.
If possible, sound out other owners to see if they want to be on and to get their support. But make sure you have the numbers beforehand to a) set the correct number of seats on the committee and b) elect your ticket.
If anyone at the meeting objects to this and seems to have support – “Mrs X wants to be on so we should have another seat” – tell the meeting that the entire EC ticket will withdraw their nomination because the EC will be totally dysfunctional otherwise.
However, if you have done your legwork previously, this should not even arise and Mrs X will be blindsided, as they say on Survivor (the perfect illustration of how to run an EC).
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 only way the levies can be altered is by changing the unit entitlements … so, yes!
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.
@SMO said:
“With that in mind, he (Mr Roberts) said, the new model bylaws will, for the first time, cover smoke drift and allow pets by default, rather than banning them as is now the case.”Firstly, you need to discern the difference between a direct quote and my reportage. Secondly, although the detail hasn’t been published yet, the thrust of the proposed by-law will be changed from “no pets without consent” to “pets, but with conditions”.
This is nitpicking stuff. It may not have the word ‘ban” in it but the current by-law is a very effective block on pet ownership for those who choose to employ it that way.
In any case, as we all know, any building that really, really doesn’t want pets can ban them by changing the model by-law before even the first AGM.
The significance of this proposed change in the model by-law is to take into account the fact that most people moving into a new building, especially first-time strata owners, have no idea what by-laws are, what they mean and how hard they are to change.
Once by-laws are passed (by a simple majority) at the first AGM they are bloody hard to change and a lot of people find themselves living in pro-pets buildings (according to the majority view) with “no-pets” ECs gathering up their 25 percent “no” vote every time there’s any danger of the status quo being threatened.
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 totally sympathise. I heard about a block in Bondi where an owner who was clearly a bit off the planet would turn up at EC meetings and scream at all the owners … until one of them brought along a tenant who was a largish Scotsman with a black belt in something who would tell him to calm down.
You could spend your waking life plotting revenge – or just some way to restore balance – but that’s just another victory for his nibs. I’m not clear what it is that he’s doing wrong – is it just snooping and plotting? Or is he physically and/or verbally threatening. Either way, you should really consider an AVO as verbal assaults are still assaults under the law.
Or you temporarily take in a largish Scottish lodger (with a black belt).
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.
Relauctant as I am to contradict the Mighty Cetacian, I’m tending to agree with your SM.
The closest I could find to a reference was under the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act
25 Transfer or lease of common property
(1) A body corporate may, pursuant to a special resolution, execute a transfer or lease of common property other than common property the subject of a lease accepted or acquired by the body corporate under section 19 (2).
Any more authoritative views gladly accepted.
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.
@Whale said:
I don’t know what State or Territory you’re in, but as you’re talking about an evaporative cooler (roof mounted?) I assume that your Plan is not on the eastern or western seaboards.Keith’s IP address appears to be in the ACT so, in the absence of him telling us whether he is or not, perhaps PeterC might take a punt at this one. I wouldn’t recommend anyone else offering an opinion or advice until we get confirmation.
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.
To answer your question, gather as much written evidence as you can from your neighbours and get an AVO that forces this person to leave you alone. This is not a strata issue – it’s a neighbourhood issue and has nothing to do with your strata plan.
There are bullies outside of strata too, Me, I’m fed up with people who have issues with neighbours and blame it on living in strata.
One good thing about strata is that you are not alone – and I could tell you plenty of stories about nasty and aggressive neighbours in standalone houses who have made the lives of the people living next to them a misery … and they haven’t had anyone to support 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.
@cate said:
… from someone who has taken an interest in a complex i would recommend that people stay right away from strata properties and so called specialist strata management companies.It’s unfortunate that you have had a bad experience and many of us have had similarly frustrating times. However to dismiss all of strata and all strata professionals because things didn’t work out the way you wanted is, frankly, ludicrous. It sounds like you may be better suited to a free-standing house – some people simply are – but, personally, despite all the hassles I have endured over the years, I wouldn’t live in one for quids.
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.
Agree this is a grey are but I disagree that if the building’s insurance covers it, the owner should cover the excess.
It’s either the building’s responsibility or it isn’t. Why would the insurer pay if it’s not a claim against the building? Why should the owner pay anything if it is a legitimate claim?
You can’t be half pregnant.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.
If you can prove that the damage to the light was caused by a failure of common property, you can send the Owners Corp a bill for the repairs and/or replacement.
However, bear in mind that a quirk in the Memoradum “who is responsible for what …?” suggests that the Owners Corp is only responsible for the damage done in repairing common property not for damage caused by the failure of the common property in the first place.
According to many strata lawyers this is not a legally sustainable position, and it’s certainly not the law, but its one your strata manager may take in the first instance.
In reality, most home and contents policies will cover this but you may have to pay an excess. Your dilemma is, if the OC refuses to pay the excess, is it worth your time and trouble pursuing them through the locals courts.
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.