Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
struggler said:
In a unit complex you would probably have to have a dish on each balcony.
Have a drive past the developments on the way to the airport in Sydney and see what it looks like when every balcony has a satellite disk on it. Better for everyone to put one big one on the roof and cable it. Otherwise your “luxury” block ends up looking like a council house scheme in Britain.
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.
First of all, I have gone in and changed the name of this user because he was using the name of a real plumbing firm. Also the questions were suspiciously stupid. I mean, who writes to a web advice column and says just “help”?
But help is what we’re here for and we gave him a chance.
And there is an important point to be made here: If you are getting rust coming out of a tap, it may be a sign that your or your owners corporation’s water tank is about to fall apart. That means you require immediate attention from a plumber.
If you don't do something about it immediately, it could cost you a lot of grief and plenty of money.
So Funny Guy – if you really have this problem, get someone in NOW. Meanwhile you're going to have to re-register to be part of this Forum
If you are just having fun at our expense, take a few minutes to grow 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.
First up, I'm not sure if exactly where strata law is the same or different in WA but it will be.
The first question is whether or not the Owners Corporation could make this decision by a simple majority, then there's a question of whether this includes subscription as well as connection. And then there's the whole question of any opt-out possibilities (unlikely if common property is involved).
WA strata law is still in its infancy and they are way behind the rest of us in its development and application. For instance, strata managers in WA don't even have to be licensed. You can download the WA government's Guide To Strata Titles HERE but I don't know how much help it will be. It does say that changes to any structure must have unanimous approval – but I don't know if that applies to cabling Foxtel.
25.1 Strata Schemes (sec 7 and 7B STA)
25.1.1 Approval for Structural Alterations
The alterations of any structure on a strata lot must be approved by the other lot owners in writing or the strata company by a resolution without dissent at a general meeting.Strata Disputes in WA are refereed by the State Administrative Tribunal but the guide warns that they will not offer advice and, in any case, their decision may end up in court. (Sounds familiar, eh?)It costs about $60 to register a dispute and you can get the forms HERE.
Where to go for advice, I'm not sure. You could start with the WA branch of Strata Communities Australia – the new national umbrella body for strata managers. Their website is HERE. Or you could contact the Strata Titles Institute of WA at their email address: admin@stiwa.com.au.
One thing though – three other people voted against the Foxtel installation and they should all be working together on this. Time for a cup of tea with the neighbours, I reckon.
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.
A low admin fund can be a sign that a problem has been dealt with, just as much as it's an indication that it's a problem that might exist. Obviously, you need to get to the bottom of this but, despite my comments about disappearing off over the horizon, a building that has had problems but has resolved them can offer real bargains if you get them on the upswing, when their reputation is depressing prices.
No building has no problems – the issue for the potential purchaser is whether they have been dealt with or are a continued drain on finances. Good luck!
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.
Interesting – and I'm hoping some of our professionals will hop in on this one. I would say that a basic element of the obligation to provide the report would be that it was readable otherwise, techinically, it hasn't been provided.
However, one thing I would say is that given a choice between incompetence and conspiracy theories, I would always go with the former.
Lack of diligence by blissfully ignorant and badly organised ECs – often under siege from their owners at times of crisis – will turn problems into disasters. The result is, eventually, people like strata managers and building managers either just give up or weren't all that on the ball to begin with (because the strata plan in crisis goes with the cheapest option rather than the best one).
And that's how you end up with unreadable documents. Having said that, if there's a defects claim involved, any dirty underhand developer trick is possible.
Now I have a question for you: do you really want to buy into this building? Unless I could see what the problem was and how to fix it easily, that dot disappearing over the horizon would be me.
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'm sure it can be approved but it would most likely require council planning approval and certainly a special resolution, not to mention compensation to the Owners Corporation for the use of common property to enhance the value of your lot.
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'm in total agreement with Gilgal1. My building's EC used to invite interested owners on to sub-committees related to their areas of expertise.
The subcommittees reported to the EC and everything worked pretty smoothly (notwithstanding the obligatory ratbags that every building has). The newcomers got a taste of strata life and the incumbents got a chance to see what they were made of, should any vacancies arise.
Sadly the sub-committee system faded away when the EC changed. The current EC is pretty much a one-man show with the EC just basically a rubber stamp for a very forceful character. Fortunately he's a decent bloke doing a good job but you wonder what will happen when he falls under the inevitable strata bus that gets us all in the end.
“Delegate, integrate and involve” would be my motto for ECs.
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.
Glad to be of service CBF.
If you access the Act online HERE you will always get the very latest version
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.
My understanding is that the Proxy is not valid if the proxy giver is present and voting. I've known a few cases where an owner has given a proxy to their lawyer or a relative to speak on their behalf but wanted to be there to hear what was said. They may even be able to speak.
This is what the Act says:
Proxy cannot vote if person appointing proxy votes
A proxy cannot exercise a vote in relation to a matter if the person who appointed the proxy is exercising personally a power to vote on that matter.That section certainly says nothing about speaking at the meeting. The weird thing about this case was that the chairman ruled that the proxy wasn't valid but then ruled that the ownder couldn't speak becasue they had a proxy there. Talk about having your cake and eating it – it's that old strata custom of making it up as you go along (and then walking out of the meeting when you're challenged).
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, first of all, owners probably shouldn't be parking on common property in the first place.
However, unless there is a by-law that says owners' cars parked on common property can be towed, I believe this threat has no standing.
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.
An existing member of the EC would have to resign before this new person could simply be elected by the current members.
The number of members of the EC is set at the AGM. The EC is obliged to fill any vacancies as they arise but I don’t think there’s a mechanism for adding new members without holding a general meeting to alter the number of seats on the EC.
So I would say no, they can’t do that unless it’s at a general meeting (which, I suppose, would mean the entire EC would have to be put up for re-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.
Ahh … well, now your chairman's actions make even less sense.
To be honest, we can quote the Act and regulations and CTTT rulings till the cows come home but if your chairman is a bully or just doesn't want any dissenting voices to be heard, nobody's going to put him in jail for playing fast and loose with the processes of the Owners Corporation.
By far the easiest thing to do is get rid of them by direct (democratic) action.
Have a look at this column which should give you a few ideas. But why not take him to Fair Trading and the CTTT to establish once and for all what he should have done and must do in the future. It could be a crucial step in letting your fellow owners know that his time is 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.
The Act isn't silent on speaking rights, as it turns out.
14 Owners’ attendance at executive committee meetings
An owner or, where that person is a corporation, any company nominee of the corporation is entitled to attend a meeting of the executive committee but may not address the meeting unless authorised by resolution of the executive committee.
That means owners can attend Executive Committee meetings and they can speak but only if the Executive Committee votes in favour of that.
It seems bizarre that the proxy wasn't allowed to speak because they were a proxy and the owner wasn't allowed to speak becasue they'd brought a proxy – the chairman can't have it both ways.
But the chairman shouldn't be making these ad hoc rulings. The Act quite clearly says this is a decision for the EC to make as a whole.
The chair has to be allowed to exercise some degree of control over proceedings but denying owners or their proxies the chance to speak could (and probably should) lead to them being removed from the chairmanship (by the Executive committee ) or the EC completely (by a vote at a general meeting).
The CTTT is unlikely to rule on meeting procedure unless there is some serious issue that isn't being addressed, to the detriment of the strata plan, because the chairman has a vested interest in it not being discussed.
But short of that, there are plenty of democratic mechanisms for dealing with strata bullies, as a recent Flat Chat column explained.
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.
Young1 said:
The neighbouring building is being renovated and built on. During this process, strata has deemed it OK for the construction company to place a crane in our car park.
Just to clarify, before anyone starts raking through the strata act, what exactly do you mean by 'strata” – as in “strata has deemed it OK …”
Do you mean the executive committee, the strata manager, the owners corporation or the building manager?
And if you mean the strata manager, do you know if they have delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Executive Committee or the Owners Corporation?
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, I don't think this agent is “on crack” literally or figuratively. The one sensible thing you have written is to ask the strata manger why they think the owner asking for the special resolutions should pay.
The situation is much more complicated than a simple reading of strata law (as so often is the case). Clause 31 of schedule 2 only says that the EC is required to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting if requested by 25 percent of the owners. It says absolutely nothing about who pays for what.
The OC might well pay for the EGM under normal circumstances but the cost of preparing special resolutions etc can often fall to individual owners if the process is mainly for their benefit (like an exclusive use by-law, for instance, allowing them permanent and exclusive use of common property).
We don't know if that's the case here but it's certainly a possible scenario and it's a common courtesy in many buildings for the person who benefits from a process to pay for it.
For example, an owner may have the support of 25 percent of owners (in this case, the owner and a neighbour would be all it took) for an EGM to be called to give the owner(s) exclusive use of a store cupboard.
The agent in a situation like this might quite correctly feel that those who benefit from the special resolution should pay for it. Why would the OC pay for something that only benefits one or two people? You would assume that the other owners would agree with this.
I'm not sure about asking for payment upfront but the agent is in a position to advise all owners that they shouldn't approve the special resolution unless all costs are borne by those who are going to benefit. Owners would be “on crack” to do anything other than agree.
So perhaps the agent is right to short-circuit this possibility (and thereby increase the likelihood of the people who have called the EGM getting what they want.) In many cases, other owners will say that if the owner who benefits isn't going to pay for it, then they are going to vote against it – and quite right too. Doin't forget, it only thatkes the same numbers – 25 percent – to block an exclusive use by-law as it does to call an EGM.
There are many other cases where the strata manager might appear to overstep their authority for very good reason. I have also know cases where serial pests in a building have enough clout to keep calling EGMs where they know they have no chance of success but just want to exercise their strata muscle becasue they aren't getting their way on other issues. They simply want to make all the other owners jump through the hoops for their own amusement – the strata manager is doing his or her jobe by making sure the OC isn't out of pocket for these irritations.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that's the situation here and I have no reason to think it is.
But we don't know the facts of this case so it's a bit early to be telling people that their strata manager has lost the plot.
If this is an EGM to correct anomolies in a building that are going to benefit the majority of people in the building, then, yes, you would want the OC to pay.
But even if this is a legitimate request by an owner to get an exclusive use by-law that benefits only them or a minoity of owners, then the strata manager is perfectly entitled to find a way of letting them know that there is no “free lunch” in this regard.
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.