Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The standard by law requires you to have written permission to keep the pet. Any decision must be made by the majority which means more than 50% In agreement. HOWEVER, permission must not be unreasonably withheld.
The bottom line is, if the matter went to the CTTT they would probably be in your favour if the dog was not causing a disturbance and against you if it was.
Beware though – many a “we’ll trained, non barking dog” barks all day when their owners are at work or elsewhere leaving the dog home alone and bored.
Boronia said
To what extent can an OC/EC decide what IS in keeping if it is inside the lot?
If it is visible from outside the lot then it must be in keeping with the building – except with the written permission of the owners corporation. This is the key. Write to your committee and ask permission to keep whatever it is you want to keep in view. Point out the steps you will take to ensure you will not detract from the look of the building.
I don’t see that there is anything to mediate. It is cut and dry – the by-law was not registered according to legislation so it should be struck down.
If the LPI was doing their job properly they would not have allowed this to be registered. I wonder if there is a way you can apply to LPI for them to remove the registered dealing from the certificate of title since it was done incorrectly?
If you don’t want to hand over control to a compulsory appointed strata manager you may consider applying for an adjudicators order against the owners corporation to carry out their duties under section 62 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (SSMA) which says;
62 What are the duties of an owners corporation to maintain and repair property?
(1) An owners corporation must properly maintain and keep in a state of good and serviceable repair the common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation.
If the OC resolved at the AGM to obtain an expert report then the EC cannot over rule this decision. If the $5000 was only a budget allocation then that is not a sufficient resolution with respect of this and the committee does have the power to make this decision.
Getting back to your original question though, Schedule 3, Clause 4 of the SSMA sets out the process to sack one or more EC members. This can be done by special resolution at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). An EGM must be convened ASAP upon receipt of a written request from at least one quarter of the owners (by unit entitlement).
Good luck.
KP must be paying his strata manager a fortune if he expects him to be a building manager & handyman as well.
A strata manage role is primarily administrative and financial. You should not expect them to regularly meet and instruct trades persons, carry out site inspections and minor maintenance. They should however know your building and visit every now and then.
Jeff, you are indeed looking for a building manager. You should be able to find one who can offer 8 to 10 hours a week with flexibility in how and when they do these hours.
Another valid suggestion is to employ a cleaner/caretaker who can liaise with tradesmen and identify issues (and preferably rectify minor issues themselves) whilst carrying out their regular cleaning duties.
Hang in there Shiraz! Only two months until your next AGM.
It may well come to pass that EF will appreciate another owner wanting to become involved and ease the burden of them having to do all of the work previously. Obviously he was the only owner interested in how your property was being run before the two recent villa purchases.
As for the $230 levies? The sales agent was telling lies. Presuming that all for units have close to equal units of entitlement that would only amount to a total of $3700 in levies. That would struggle to even cover the building insurance let alone strata management fees water usage and common area electricity (not to mention the numerous other outgoings).
I agree that there is an issue with not holding regular properly convened meetings but…
Re newsletters stopping, who has been writing/editing these newsletters in the past? This is often a committee member or other owner volunteering their time So if this person no longer has the time or inclination to do this then fair enough. If owners are aggrieved with this suggest to the committee that you would be happy to assist with this.
Regarding the by-law, it sounds to me that the developers of your strata scheme opted not to adopt model by-laws but to register their own set of by-laws. This is common and should ensure you have a set of by-laws appropriate for your specific strata scheme.
Why is this by-law so bad anyway? Doesn’t it make it more transparent if all communications are in writing (especially since email is an acceptable form of written communication)? Won’t all documents and correspondence sent to the strata manager become records of the owners corporation and available to any owner wishing to inspect the records?
Unfortunately you will also find that many strata management companies have written into their agreements that they can also charge for sending emails so moving to purely email based system will not always save you disbursements.
My advice is to fins a manager who will charge one all inclusive fee so there will be full transparency. Yes, the base rate will be more expensive but you will not be slugged with all the additional expenses that you have no control over.
kiwipaul said
BUT carpets are not covered by the building insurance and so for these you would have to claim on your contents insurance.Internal paintwork will also not be covered by the building insurance.
Both items should be covered by your contents insurance though.
I agree with Whale et.al.
However I note that regardless of a special by-law saying that maintenance of a section of common property is the lot owners responsibility, the owners corporations insurance policy will still pay out the claim (I know of several claims where this was the case). Further to this, the lot owners contents will NOT cover any property which is covered by the owners corporations insurance. So in such cases the practical approach is; if the maintenance responsibility lies with the lot owner, then the lot owner arranges the repair and then lodges a claim through the strata insurance company. Any settlement will be automatically less the excess (and GST if applicable) and will be made out to the owners corporation. The owners corporation should then reimburse the lot owner the settlement amount.
If the repair is the responsibility of the owners corporation, then they arrange for the repair, pay the invoice and make the claim.
In this case – sounds like common property to me.
Hi Mary,
Since your strata scheme was registered on the 80’s then the balcony doors will be considered common property (unless in the unlikely scenario that it is stated otherwise on the registered strata plan).
Since the doors are common property you will need a special resolution at a general meeting for approval.
Further to this, if the owners corporation considers that any approval should be based on you (or any future lot owner) being burdened with the responsibility of the ongoing maintenance of the new doors (since they are an improvement to your lot) then a by-law will need to be approved and registered also.
Jimmy may well be correct and the likelihood of the CTTT overturning a decision on this basis may be small.
I’m sure that there are many owners corporations running their adjourned AGM’s like this but I for one wouldn’t want my strata manager to suggest a practice that is contrary to the Act. Where do you draw the line?
Is this practice acceptable for small schemes where no significant decisions are being made? Possibly.
Is this practice fraught with danger if there are any significant decisions or special resolutions on the agenda? Definitely.
Another relevant issue comes to mind… my strata manager has a standard AGM agenda item regarding their ‘re-appointment’ every year. There is no way for this motion to be carried unless there are other owners or proxy holders present apart from the strata manager as the strata manager will be unable to vote on the motion.
Actually KP, the adjourned meeting is not a new meeting but an adjournment of the originally scheduled AGM. Therefore when the Act states that the proxies must be received prior to the meeting this refers to the scheduled meeting date and time (not it’s adjournment).
This is exactly why the practice outlined below is fraught with danger and owners wishing to have their vote count should turn up at the adjourned meeting.
This is a practice fraught with danger.
All it would take is one or two owners to turn up to the adjourned meeting and vote against “the vibe” of the owners at the original meeting.
Any proxies given to the strata manager after the scheduled start of the original AGM should be considered invalid as they should be received by the secretary prior to the meeting date/time (and at least 24 hours before for a large strata scheme).
You need at least one owner in attendance (physically or by proxy) at an adjourned meeting for it to proceed so if the Strata Manager has no valid proxies allowing him/her to cast a vote at the adjourned meeting and no owners physically turn up then the adjourned meeting will not be able to proceed.
I would have thought that the strata manager advising the committee of a complaint against them was not trying to cover up anything as suggested in comments below but rather being fully transparent.
If they were trying to cover something up they would have tried to “sweep it under the carpet” and not told anyone.