Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
1) How did this situation develop? It’s a usual requirement of a building permit that access to utilities is via common property.
2) Utulities use a master key to access locked gates and doors. They are known by various codes depending on the utility and state. A locksmith can install such a lock or padlock.The issue here is an upgrade of the NBN.
NBN provides a connection to every home for free. The connection is what NBN considers adequate and within technical constraints.
There are users who want more bandwidth for various reasons.
The analogy here is your electrical supply to your apartment. It’s sized for the typical family. If you decide to install a large air conditioner , then the supply to you unit needs to be upgraded, and that’s at your expense.
Using the electrical analogy, users who want more bandwidth to their NBN should pay for the upgrade and those who don’t want it opt out.
Let me elaborate on the “winning a case” position.
In JT’s case it seems that some agreement (called a settlement) was reached between the two parties.
When this happens, the lawyers always say at the beginning of the settlement deed something to the effect that no fault is found with either party. So that means no one actually won (further you can only win a case if the judge determines that)
Now when a settlement is made its usual for both parties to reach a mutually agreed position (usually some sort of monetary settlement). That means that one party gives up something (money) to appease the other party.
If your case was to seek compensation of say one million dollars and on settlement you received a half a million, you’d call that a win. But that’s different to winning a court case. (even though the outcome may have been the same)
And the take out of this from me, if anyone has got this far, is that settling a matter out of court is always preferable to going to court. In a settlement you have control of the outcome. If you leave it to the court, its pot luck.
I am happy to say iy=ts not as complex as the previous poster made out.
Firstly the OC is responsible to repair and maintain common property. If they dont clear the gutters its a clear breach of their duty
Similarly, if the waterproofing of the balcony was done by poor tradesmen, its the OC problem to either get it rectified by the contractor or do it again.
None of the above require any motions at meetings as its enshrined in the act.
I would , if you already have not, write to the strata manager telling them to clean the gutters and fix the waterproofing. Give them two months
Then threaten to take them to NCAT under section 232 , 1(f)
If that doesnt move them then apply to NCAT for orders to fix the waterproofing and clean the gutters.
Remember you will need some proof, say photos of flooding, invoices of rectification work you have paid for etc
You are correct.
However there is no penalty for the SM when he does this.
I suggest what you should do is recall who voed for and who voted against the motion(s)
Calculate the result is a poll vote was taken. You can get the unit entitlements from the strata roll. It may also be worthwhile to determine who was finaincial at the time as being unfinancial does not allow one to vote.
Then determine if the result would have changed. If the issue is important enough you can go to NCAT to get the result changed. BUT in that case you will need conculsive evidence of who voted for and who voted against the motion. If its like most strata managers, the minutes will only say passed or defeated, with no indication of the voting pattern.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is what I understand.
All correspondence of the OC is the property of the OC and as such can be accessed by any lot owner.
The only caveat is that a lot owner who is taking the OC to court is barred from seeing the legal correspondence associated with the case ( until the matter is settled, which would include any appeals).
If I was on this committee, I would limit the people who have access to the legal documents to those who are running the case. Usually one or two people are elected to speak with the lawyers.
What you do not want is an associate of the aggrieved lot owner to access legally privileged documents and pass that to the aggrieved owner.
Not all lot owners are going to side with the OC nor with the aggrieved lot owner.
You said you have a strata manager.
If they have been delegated the role of secretary , which is usual, just ask the strata manager to call a committee meeting.
Similarly the strata manger could chair the meeting, and takes minutes, and subsequently distribute them.
This all depends that you have a competent strata manager.
I agree JT
But the act does not confer decision making power to the strata manager.
In cases where there is a lack of interest or a lack of expertise, the strata manger should be deferring decisions by way of generals meetings. At least everyone knows what is being decided and maybe the owners get sick of incessant general meetings and step up to the plate.
As an aside, where there is a lack of expertise, maybe te committee should employ some consultants to provide independent advice.
But I agree , when strata mangers overstep their authority, it can get nasty to steer the ship back on course ( as your tales have shown)
Hear, hear
I am a retiree and looking to downsize. I want to free up my 4 bed family home so a growing family can fully utilise and underused asset.
i want to move into a strata property, but I don’t want a pokey little unit.
Once I sell my house I’ll have a substantial amount of money to spend.
But I can’t find many spacious apartments with storage and enough parking
And I don’t want it in the outer suburbs where my social contacts don’t live.
Will developers ever tap this market ( retiring baby boomers)
I say the role of the strata manger should be as trusted advisor.
They should provide an impartial input to the committee, in relation to what the act allows and how they have handled similar cases .
Their role is not to be judge or jury.
Having said that, the role of the committee is to make the decisions . Sometimes they may go with the advice of the SM and sometimes against their advice. The strata manager , as it says in the act, is not responsible for the decision making of the committee or the OC.
In my opinion, the SM can only be held accountable for carrying out the FUNCTIONS that have been delegated to them. The act clearly states the functions of the chair, treasurer and secretary – to which I say is the standard the SM should meet.
The act does not say a function of the SM is to make decisions.
It seems you missed something.
Normally decisions such as this are made at committee or general meetings. These meetings need to have an agenda and be notified to all owners.
Did you not get notified?
Secondly, it’s not unusual when there are large expenditures for the OC to take out a loan if they do not have the funds available. The loan is paid off over time by your levies. Individual owners do not have an option to pay their share upfront. It’s one in, all in.Loans are also taken out in consideration that not all owners can stump up a large sum at the outset.
( There is a new loan product recently available that allows individual owners to pay their share up front. But it can’t be taken after another loan is already established)
Why is there a need to have such a motion in the first place.
There is no restriction in the act to prevent information nights being held.
The committee can just decide ad hoc when and where such an information night is held.
We had a similar story
Got advice from a well known legal firm that said the same as JT.
The twist is that the motion was defeated by a handful of owners.
For a special resolution to pass only 75% of people who vote need to vote in the affirmative.
we all know that in most strata only a small percentage of owners vote, so in a 12 lot strata it could need only a handful of votes to pass the motion ( not 9 as some may think)
Just organise owners who are in favour of the idea to make sure they vote.
You have the answer.
the other committee member is behind in his levies.
That makes him ineligible to a) stand for the committee and b ) vote at committee meetings
YOU tell the strata manager that you want a committee meeting. You decide the agenda. Since there is only two members, you will have a quorum ( of 1)
you then vote all the motions .
The other committee member can’t do anything about this since the act back you up.
Why not just write a letter saying you are terminating their contract for non performance
That might get their attention.
Once you have their attention you can start to get your grievances addressed.
If they fail to reply because clearly such a request is outside the contract, I think you may have a good case in court to have them removed.