Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Much as I hate to be seen pimping my lawyer mates, this is a clear case for getting legal advice first and maybe even having a lawyer there at the meeting to challenge every dodgy nomination that comes up. You may have to pay for this out of your own collective pockets but if you can spread it around, it would be worth the money.
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.
It's a special resolution which means it needs a 75 percent vote in favour at a general meeting and it would have to be registered. It would also need a 75 percent vote to rescind, otherwise it sits there in perpetuity.
Rehardging Whale's comment about how effective (or not) it is, I think it will only work with enthusiastic marketting of the discount and aggressive enforcement of the penalties for late payment. Between paying early and paying late, that's a 20 percent difference in your levies. If that doesn't get their attention nothing will.
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.
Hey Struggler
maybe a secret note directing him to this thread might be a wake-up call. Or a quiet word over a mug of tea?
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 think this clause is prescriptive. It would be up to 10 percent and any date before the due date would be covered by the second part.
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.
Reading Whale's post, it strikes me that there are plenty of provisions for dealing with problem tenants (whether or not they are Housing NSW's sub-tenants).
There are parts of Sydney that are considered no-go areas because of massive Housing NSW blocks where there are third and fourth generation unemployed and anti-social behaviour is part of the cultural norm.
It strikes me that if there is some way of giving a hand up to the odd family that has a chance of dragging itself out of this quicksand of deprivation, then we should do so. You would hope that Housing NSW would put their best and not their worst clients in these sub-lets … and one way to make sure that happens is to issue Notices To Comply to Housing NSW, as Whale described, if and when things go wrong.
Yes , there will be yahoos and idiots – but they could just as easily be owners (like the father who bought a flat for his teenage son and his mates so they could have somewhere to party and not bother him.)
Otherwise, the only people who are against second chances are those of us who've never needed one … so far.
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're right about item one – a thorough strata search will tell you if there are any issues with pets – but I would be wary of buying off the plan.
The whole Flat Chat catastrophe started because my wife and I bought an apartment off the plan having been assured it would be pet friendly, only to turn up at the first AGM to discover the chairman and his cronies had plans to change the by-laws and ban all pets.
One year later, after a bitter, bitter battle, chairman and cronies were gone. Not only did they lose the pet battle, they had stupidly united disparate people who also sacked our incompetent and corrupt building manager – and pets were allowed. Had that not happened, we faced losing our cats or losing our home. So I would say be very wary of buying into a building when you don't know for sure if pets are allowed – and that would include all off-the-plan purchases.
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.
Sloan
You can't make assumptions about people's behaviour, even based on your own experiences. These guys are trying to do the right thing or they wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
But you do have a point about leaving dogs on their own.
Answer: Get two dogs!
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.
easty said:
I also think we should also refer to:
“STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 – SECT 92
Insurance claim where owner at fault
92 Insurance claim where owner at fault
If an insurer of an owners corporation accepts a claim by the
owners corporation based on an act or omission by an owner of a lot, the insurer has no right of subrogation in relation to the owner based on that act or omission unless it is proved that the act or omission was wilful”.What is subrogation? This definition is from the FindLaw website:
Simply stated, the right of subrogation is the right to pursue someone else’s claim. If you are subrogated to someone’s claim, it sounds as though you are somehow subordinated to it — but that’s not what it means. It means that you may pursue it as though it were your own. It can arise by the express agreement of the parties, or automatically by operation of law.
Let’s look at a few examples.
- Insurance. Suppose you own a building which burns down due to the negligence of a third party. Normally you could sue the negligent third party for causing your building to burn down. If your fire insurance company pays off your claim, however, the insurance company is then subrogated to your claim against the negligent third party. This means your claim against the negligent third party is treated as having been assigned to the insurance company, which may sue him to recover the amount it paid you on account of the fire loss.
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 simple answer is that you have so many complaints it would be worth seeing a specialist strata lawyer.
It’s incredible, isn’t it, that the developers say there are too many regulations, when we keep getting stories like this about crap buildings and idiot ECs who don’t realise they don’;’ have to accept such fifth-rate treatment.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 EC can’t issue a CTTT penalty order – only the CTTT can do that.
The EC can issue a Notice To Comply (with a by-law) and you can say,”we have complied with the by-law” which says permission can’t reasonably be refused. If they chose to pursue that through the CTTT, they have to prove that they are right and you are wrong.
For all it’s faults – and they are many and great – the CTTT is not a rubber stamp of EC ‘violation notices’.
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’ve left it a bit late for a comprehensive answer to a very comp0licated question. There are all sorts of things to consider such as how many votes does the developer currently have (if he still owns more than 50 percent of the properties his voting power is reduced to one-third).
I reckon your EC needs need to pay for a strata lawyer to sit in on the meeting and advise of the legalities, preferably at the developers expense (but not their choice of 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.
Vladyi said:
Hi,
I have repairs needed on my unit/townhouse and have advised the real estate several time but they keep saying strata need to do it and they can't make them.
The key issue is that the Owners Corporation has an absolute legal responsibility to fix common property – no limits and no exceptions. Your rental agent should know this.
You can either take your landlord to Fair Trading and get an order forcing them to demand that the Owners Corp fixes Common Property – that will cost about $35.
Or you can take the Owners Corp to the CTTT yourself, which costs about $75 but at least you’re cutting out the middle man.
Call Fair Trading on 13 32 20 to get the ball rolling.
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 hear your pain, Sloan, but all of the problems you mention can be dealt with under by-laws that have nothing to with permission for pets specifically.
Our building became pet-friendly (after a battle that ended up with the creation of the Flat Chat newspaper column, all those years ago, funnily enough.) Pets are now a real social focus for people in the building who might otherwise not even greet each other.
However, the building management is absolutely ruthless when it comes to owners whose dogs are noisy or messy and who won’t so anything to fix it. Barking dogs (and their antisocial owners) are gone quicksmart.
Noisy stereos and TV cause more problems in strata buildings but you can’t ban them … just make sure their owners act responsibly.
Everything would be a lot easier if there was a way to warn prospective owners and tenants that while a building is ‘pet-friendly’, the EC is extremely noise, mess and smell unfriendly.
And I believe that buildings should be allowed to declare themselves pet-free for the many people who’d rather not live under the same roof as animals. But that has to be done right at the start – it’s not a horse you can easily change midstream.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.
Billen Ben said:
Do not forget the EC does not need the SMs permission to take action and that the SM is subordinate to the EC. If you have the support of the EC then the EC can take action if it decides it wants to.
The problem here seems to be that the EC wants to take action and the Strata Manager is blocking them and they don't know where to turn because the one person who is charged with helping them is doing the opposite.
If this strata Manager is a member of the Strata Community Australia, I would be writing to them asking what they are going to do about this.
I would also be taking action through Fair Trading to have this guy removed (although I'm not sure by what law that is possible).
What they are doing is quite clearly for the benefit of the person who brought them on board to the detriment of the people who pay their wages. In any other area of business life, that is called corruption but because it's strata it's seen as a 'victimless crime'. It's time someone in authority stepped in an shut this down.
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 very complicated (as you've discovered) and there are a few aspects of strata law that have to be addressed. Firstly, who has the right to vote on behalf of the company? And if that person is standing for election themselves, they can't then nominate a co-owner or, I think, any other person.
This is what the strata act says:
(4) A person is not eligible for election as a member of an executive committee unless the person is:
(a) an individual who is an owner,
(b) a company nominee of a corporation that is an owner, or
(c) an individual who is not an owner but who is nominated for election by an owner who is not a candidate for election.
(5) A person who is co-owner of a lot may not be a candidate for election as a member of the executive committee unless the person is nominated for office:
(a) by an owner who is not a co-owner of the lot, or
(b) by a co-owner of the lot who is not a candidate for election as a member.
So can the company nominate seven different people for seven different lots? I suspect they might but they may first have to establish their right to vote before they do so under the terms of clause 118 (below).
I would be strongly tempted to run a case through Fair Trading to ask who had the right to nominate whom, who nominated themselves and shouldn't have, and who nominated others and shouldn't have.
Once that is established, you can demand another meeting at which the EC election is re-run.
But your best bet is to galavanise all the other owners and warn them that their building is in danger of being run purely to suit the commercial interests.
This means, worst case scenario, things like planning DAs for work that might not suit residents will go through approved by the EC when it would otherwise be opposed. It means money for repairs and maintenance will be funnelled into the commercial properties and you can forget ever getting any by-laws approved that benefit residents but not the commercial interests. Visitors parking? Suddenly that will become customer parking.
You really need to nip this in the bud – organise your votes and make sure you have a block of good people that everyone can vote for and who occupy all the vacancies on the committee.
By the way, poll (unit entitlement) votes for EC elections are allowed in NSW but not (I think) in Queensland.
118 Notice to be given to owners corporation of right to cast vote at meeting
(1) Person with right to vote at meetings must notify owners corporation
A person who has an interest in a lot that, subject to this Act, gives the person a right to cast a vote either personally or by nominee at meetings of the owners corporation must notify the owners corporation in writing of that interest.(2) Contents of notice
The notice must specify the following information and, if the interest is a mortgage, include confirmation by the mortgagor or be verified by statutory declaration of the mortgagee:(a) the person’s full name and an Australian address for service of notices,
(b) the lot concerned and the exact nature of the person’s interest in it,
(c) the date on which the person acquired the interest,
(d) if the voting entitlement conferred by the interest is one that, according to Schedule 2, is to be exercised by a nominee, the nominee’s full name and address for service of notices.
(3) Other matters to be specified in notice
The notice must specify the manner in which the interest arose and be verified by statutory declaration if any of the following applies to the interest:(a) the interest is that of the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person,
(b) the interest is that of the liquidator or receiver in bankruptcy of any person,
(c) the interest has arisen by operation of law or the order of any court,
(d) the interest has arisen in any manner otherwise than by transfer of the interest from some other person or the discharge of a mortgage.
(4) Owners corporation may require notice to be given
The secretary of the owners corporation, if of the opinion that a person obliged to give notice under this section has not done so, may by a requisition in writing served on the person, require the person:(a) to state, within 14 days, whether or not the person is a person required to give notice under this section, and
(b) if the person is such a person, to give that notice.
(5) Person prevented from casting vote if certain requirements not met
A person is not entitled to cast a vote at a meeting of the owners corporation if the person has not complied with a requisition served on the person under subsection (4) or, in the case of a vote to be tendered through a nominee, if the nominee’s full name and address for service of notices have not been notified under this section.(6) Changes in certain information to be notified
A person who has given notice under this section may by further notice advise any change of nominee or of the person’s or any nominee’s address for 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.