[kiwipaul]

@just get on with it said:
KP – I believe that Investor13 is probably referring to a claim against the Home Owners Warranty Insurer since we are talking about failure of waterproofing membrane – not a claim against the OC’s building insurance.

I believe you could be right as I didn’t understand why the Strata insurance had accepted responsibility for what was a building defect. So OP needs to examine what the Product Disclosure Statements (PDS) says for the Warranty Insurance.

BUT if the insurance firm has already agreed to provide temp accommodation in writing just take them up on it and again let the builder and insurance firm fight it out.

Seems to me the insurance firm dropped a clanger agreeing to relocation costs if it is not covered by the PDS. But if OP has this in writing the insurance firm will have trouble wriggling out of paying for it.

[kiwipaul]

You need to check your insurance Product Disclosure Statement (available online to download) and see what it says mines says

POLICY 1

up to 15% of your building sum insured for temporary accommodation costs and loss of rent (see Special Benefits 1a and 1b of Policy 1);

SPECIAL BENEFITS

1 Temporary accommodation / rent / contributions / storage a Temporary accommodation

When You occupy Your Lot/Unit

We will pay the reasonable cost of Temporary Accommodation You necessarily incur if Your Lot/Unit is made unfit to be occupied for its intended purpose by:

i loss or damage that is admitted as a claim under Policy 1; or

My understanding would be that if you have an insurance claim it’s the insurer you would talk to and if they have agreed relocation it is up to them to pay for you to be relocated (as per your policy) and for them to claim it back from the builder. Let the builder and insurance fight it out just ask for your rights under the insurance policy.

[kiwipaul]

I support Jimmy on this one, most people at AGM or other meeting are your average guy (or gal) they are NOT high court barristers arguing points of law to the n degree.

They are trying to make simple, straight forward decisions and they need simple expectations namely 50% or 75% in favor is a pass less is a failure.

The whole point of the CTTT system is to NOT involve lawyers as this just increases the cost exponentially and generates needless arguments over trivia which the average person (me included) doesn’t understand.

 

[kiwipaul]

@Dudley said:

One concerns the approval of the financial statement and if consideration be given to the appointment of an auditor – how important is this?

Many thanks,

We never have an audit (we were told it would cost $1,000 (10 lots)) and everything seems pretty obvious from the EOFY statement.

If we did have an audit I would press for an auditor of our choice because if the SM is doing something illegal using the SM auditor would most probably not uncover it. If you have a good SM they won’t be doing anything illegal so an audit is pointless.

[kiwipaul]

@Sig said:

KP could you please point me in the direction of the “procedures” to be followed.

Your starting point has to be the CTTT web site in NSW.

Another useful source is Strata living document produced by NSW gov and their is a link to download it at the bottom of the CTTT web site.

 

[kiwipaul]

struggler this lot owner seems to be taking advantage of the situation with the OC and SM being apathetic and just looking for a quite life ( in a legal sense)

 

You can however take action yourself via conciliation and adjudication for his breaches of bylaws and ignoring the provisions of the Strata act.

 

If he is making changes to common property (he needs EC approval and a bylaw requiring 75% in favor), parking in drive or visitor parking bays, damaging common property, obstructing common property, etc he can be taken to CTTT and be made to comply with the Act.

 

Taking action against him you can list all his breaches going back years to show his unreasonable attitude and ask the Adjudicator to make him restore the property to it’s original condition, and desist from ignoring the bylaws.

 

Even if the OC is apathetic if you explain to them that these changes without a bylaw mean the EC becomes liable for there upkeep might deter them from going along with this lot owner.

 

A single case at CTTT can involve numerous different  breaches and he would have to defend them all.

 

I know the SM or OC should be doing this but their is nothing to stop individual residents doing the same (cannot issue a NTC as only EC can do that).

 

[kiwipaul]

In QLD you don’t need to change the bylaws very often (we never have done so in 13 years) because the big difference is that any changes that the owner makes to the lot just requires EC or OC approval with a normal motion (no bylaw required). That is because the Act puts the onus on the lot owner to maintain any changes they make (whether approved or not).

From our Strata Act:

(3) Despite anything in subsections (1) and (2)—
(a) the body corporate is not responsible for maintaining fixtures or fittings installed by the occupier of a lot if they were installed for the occupier’s own benefit; and

b) the owner of the lot is responsible for maintaining utility infrastructure, including utility infrastructure situated on common property, in good order and condition. (so long as it only services that lot)

Also the boundary for responsibility is the mid point of the boundary wall, ceiling and floor, so everything within the lot is owners problem.

 

 

[kiwipaul]

Just to put this into context we recieved $1,700 interest and paid tax of $363 tax and the tax return cost us $112 (this is from the EOFY statement).

We are a small 10 lot complex with a SM in QLD. The only income we have are levies and interest and so the Strata pay Corporation tax on this income as above.

So for us it’s def work having term deposits.

I tried reading the tax rule as well but it’s way beyond my capabilities to understand it.

[kiwipaul]

Totally agree with Jimmy’s points.

Sounds to me like your SM is getting a cut from the lawyer. Also even if you get a lawyer written bylaw what is to say you will get the 75% yes vote to get it registered.

If the OC cannot agree to a general bylaw (funded by the OC) then submit one yourself in plain English accepting responsibility for the ongoing repair and maintenance of this and future renovations in your lot. I don’t believe the OC should be involved at all with cosmetic renovations within the lot, that don’t affect others.

If they reject your plain English bylaw go ahead with the renovations anyway and let them take you to adjudication which I believe will be thrown out as you will have done everything right and the OC is being totally unreasonable rejecting your request.

Bear in mind that for the SM to go to adjudication he will charge the OC Thousands of $$ with every likelihood he will loose.

 

[kiwipaul]

Depending on how conscientious your SM is the all money might be sitting in a current a/c earning 0% interest and that is why no income is shown.

A good SM will put most of the Sinking fund into a term dep for say 12 months, but the EC or OC can instruct the SM what to do with the funds (term and amount) at the AGM and nominate someone to oversee this throughout the year.

Bear in mind any income you receive is taxed at 30% (company tax rate) and so IMHO it is better to keep the sinking fund low and raise special levies when required.

 

[kiwipaul]

Getting the SM to run the case can prove expensive, but they don’t have to any individual resident can DIY the case to CTTT (not NTC unless they have the approval of the EC) with the support of the EC or as a plaintiff themselves.

It’s not to difficult so long as you prepare and read all the online help files and documents. Also read previous CTTT ruling so you can see what is important and what is not.

Also make sure you have followed all the procedures as you don’t want it thrown out due to a procedural error. This brings the cost down to hundreds of $ instead of thousands and if you are doing it on behalf of the EC the EC cover the cost.

 

[kiwipaul]

@Whale said:

It’s clear therefore that henrietta would need to get her E/C’s support to implement those “extra steps”, particularly as the S/M will be entitled to charge an additional “fee-for-service”, and so in that regard it would be a good idea for her to enlist the support of other Owners who are similarly affected by the noisy tenant. 

Thank’s for setting me straight JGOWI. 

I know an NTC is not the same as conciliation and then adjudication, but I asked our SM a few years ago what they charge to obtain a ruling and they told me the average charge is $2,000 (just the SM fee) but it depends on the complexity of the case and how long it takes to prepare the documents.

This would be payable by the OC and even if you win the cost is not claimable against the looser. Our SM is just a small one man operation so god knows what the big organizations charge.

[kiwipaul]

@CWilson said:
Please can someone help:  is there any legislation which allows the Executive Committee to ban the recording of their EC Meetings? 

Allowed or not?  

Thanks

Thier is nothing in the Strata act about this so I would say it a decision to be taken at the meeting itself. The Chairman can propose that recording devices be allowed / banned and a vote of those present would decide the issue.

Or

You can submit a motion to the sec that recording of this and all future meeting be allowed to be recorded. This would allow recording of all future meeting (if passed) and it could only be stopped by another motion to ban it.

Chairman dosn’t have the power to decide themself.

 

 

[kiwipaul]

@CWilson said:
Please can someone help:  is there any legislation which allows the Executive Committee to ban the recording of their EC Meetings? 

Allowed or not?  

Thanks

Thier is nothing in the Strata act about this so I would say it a decision to be taken at the meeting itself. The Chairman can propose that recording devices be allowed / banned and a vote of those present would decide the issue.

Or

You can submit a motion to the sec that recording of this and all future meeting be allowed to be recorded. This would allow recording of all future meeting (if passed) and it could only be stopped by another motion to ban it.

Chairman dosn’t have the power to decide themself.

[kiwipaul]

@azur said:

 
I think it quite fair that where a lot owner’s ‘fixtures’, such as the cooktop in this instance, which obviously does not form part of common property & the owner  insists on claiming on the OC’s building insurance rather than their own, then they should cover the excess. Can this be enforced ?

The cooktop is clearly lot property (even though it is covered by Strata building insurance) so why should the OC have to pay the excess (not even common property).

Tell the lot owner to cough up.

It would require a vote of the EC or OC to approve the OC covering the excess IMHO.

[Author]

Replies