[kiwipaul]

@dech said:
The first result is a very large sinking fund – nothing predicted has yet occurred about five years into it, the other outcome has been extravagant spending on unnecessary changes which has no doubt been partly owing to the fact that we have so much ready cash.

The sol is simple submit a motion to the next AGM that the sinking fund contribution be suspended until the sinking fund balance reduces to a more reasonable figure. Just requires a simple majority to pass this motion.

Also any spending which is not a simple repair or maintenance would be considered an improvement requiring a Special Resolution by the OC to authorize (75% in favor).

[kiwipaul]

If you check your tenancy agreement s4.7 you will find this:

Note. The landlord and tenant may, by agreement, change the manner in which rent is payable under this agreement

So the landlord needs your agreement before he can change the way your rent is paid. If you are a new tenant you might have a problem but as you sound like you have already been paying in a different manner you should be ok.

[kiwipaul]

@chak said:
Thanks for all the replies.

In your opinion, can the owners use the OC fund to finance a Defects Report($24,000) by a specialised company on the block for the developer to fix defects before the Home Owners Warranty expire?

Yes they can so long as a motion is passed at a property constituted GM.

The EC cannot approve this (unless it is within their budget limit).

To stop this happening you can start proceeding at CTTT if a properly constituted motion has not been passed. This action can be taken by an individual owner, the OC (once a motion has been passed) or the EC (again once motion has been passed).

 

[kiwipaul]

@kittycat said:
We have a similar problem with our strata complex.  4 visistor spaces in a complex of 15.  All with double garages – but wait for it – some residents have decidd to use their garages for storage (not cars) OR turned them into another room – complete with walls and no approval to do so

Totally agree with Jimmy, get the EC to issue NTC to all offenders, you can also let those know that have made changes to the garage without approval that if they don’t stop parking in visitor bays you will also also start proceeding to have the garages returned to garages.

Even if the EC refuses to take action individual residents (Tenants & owners) can start proceeding at CTTT to get the bylaws enforced.

Residents have to take action to enforce the bylaws unless they want a free for all.

[kiwipaul]

As far as I can see no vote took place. Option 1 & 2 could have been considered a motion but the minutes don’t give a result for any vote FOR, AGAINST or ABSTAIN so nothing was decided. Just discussing an item does not constitute a vote, it has to be officially called and the result recorded in the minutes.

I would say getting the developer to do the repairs would not require another vote as it’s cost free, getting an outside builder to do the repairs would require another OC vote to approve the cost (assuming it’s above EC limit).

 

[kiwipaul]

@JimmyT said:

But there has to be flexibility to allow communities to set their own standards. If an elderly owner, for instance, was visited regularly by a family member and they had to get permission to park somewhere no one else was allowed to, would that be something you would pursue?
 

I totally agree that you require flexibility, and if you have to bend the rules to comply so be it, my issue is with those who consider common property their property and use it as such without a by your leave.

We have in the past voted to deny an owner permission to have a dog, now certain residents do not even submit a request they just introduce a dog, leave bins on common property, park on common property and everyone turns a blind eye. Most owners just want a quiet life and don’t want to rock the boat, but ignoring these breaches just means more and more residents loose confidence in the EC and realize that asking permission is pointless as it might be refused but just going ahead and doing it is a much safer bet.

[kiwipaul]

@tracer said:

Thanks Whale & kiwipaul for your replies. The difficulty here is the EC control over 50% of the building through either passive or non resident owners..

 

I assume you mean the EC control the OC through passive or non resident owners, because the EC CANNOT raise a Special Levy only the OC can do that.

YOU are legally allowed to access the owners register I would suggest that you send all of these passive voters a letter explaining that the EC is intending to raise an unnecessary special levy of $xxx when their is $xxx in the sinking fund and so would they be prepared to vote against this motion or give you their proxy to vote against this levy (include a proxy form suitably filled in with you as proxy that just requires them to sign and return)

Don’t inform the EC that you have this proxy until the meeting (you might have to give to the SM 24 hours before for legal reasons) because the newest dated proxy is the one that counts.

[kiwipaul]

The EC cannot impose a special levy without the approval of the OC. A simple majority of the OC opposing the motion to raise a special levy is enough to kill it.

 

[kiwipaul]

@KEB said:

I think seeing as she is in breach (for not seeking their permission on the dog in the first place) of the OC agreement the lawyer has threatened her and now she is siding with them to get herself out of trouble???????????

If your landlord owns 2 out of 3 units (assuming they all have the same entitlement) he can ignore the EC entirely as he has the majority in any vote of the OC  (66%) which can overturn any ordinary motion of the EC.

The 3rd owner cannot take any action against you or the landlord as he (your landlord) has a majority in any vote (unless he votes to take action against himself unlikely). Your lawyer is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

If your landlord has granted you permission (in this situation) in writing I don’t see you having any problem at all. Even if he has changed his mind he cannot go back on a written condition in the lease, and as he owns 2/3 of the strata what he decides goes.

[kiwipaul]

@HarbourView said:
 I think I prefer the bureaucratic approach as major works have been done in the past by owners, with permission, but not by special resolution or bylaws. After 20 years there are only a few of us who remember what happened or why and new owners make assumptions that are incorrect.

I stand by my previous comments.

If you create a bylaw granting permission you would have to be very careful about the wording as a bylaw is permanent change and passes on to new owners of the lot when sold. A bylaw can be cancelled but only with a 75% vote of the OC (not sure if the recipient has to agree as well (as in the case of a Exclusive use bylaw)).

Also with a bylaw after a number of years maybe the owners does thing you don’t agree with and he tells you he has a bylaw authorizing this, you would then have to go to CTTT to obtain a ruling and as I keep hearing the CTTT decision are a lottery and having a bylaw would significantly increase his chances of winning (even if it didn’t specifily grant exclusive use)

With a simple motion granting permission, this could be withdrawn at any time (if unhappy with whats being done) with simple majority and tell the owner to restore area to original condition. If he goes to CTTT he has no bylaw to explain his actions and any motion he produces as proof of his action is only valid so long as it’s not revoked by the EC.

Also if you say major alteration have already been done on just a motion, and you have let it go what are the chances of obtaining a successful ruling if you apply different rules to different owners without good reasons.

[kiwipaul]

Strata laws regarding this are very similar in QLD to NSW and when I moved into my complex at the first AGM we voted to allow owners to look after the gardens (common property) at the front of their units if they wanted to.

After 13 years the system is still in place, and about 50% do and the rest is taken care of by the gardener. Mainly owner/occupiers do their own and the tenants have the gardener looks after them.

We have had a number of different owners and if a new owner neglects the garden the gardener does it. Works for us.

 

[kiwipaul]

Whales solution is totally correct but very bureaucratic and strictly by the book.

I’d be more inclined to grant them permission by a simple majority so long as the garden is appropriate to the complex and maintained by the lot owner at no cost to the Strata. Also be very clear about the area involved so that it doesn’t grow over time and a desc of what they plan to do.

Also the EC reserves the right to ask the owner to return it to it’s original state if the result doesn’t comply with what was described by the owner at the time of the request.

On virtually no circumstances would I consider granting them an Exclusive Use Bylaw because once passed they are virtually impossible to revoke and the Strata looses the area for good to the lot owner.

[kiwipaul]

If your dog has received approval by the EC they cannot then turn around and ask you to get rid of it because they have changed the bylaw unless they can show your dog has proven to be a nuisance to others.

Those without approval are in a much more vulnerable position.

 

[kiwipaul]

I would say it depends on whether the Chairman has this approval limit or the committee. If the chairman has the authority I would say it’s legal, if the EC has the authority it’s illegal as he dosn’t have permission of the EC who would be required to vote the issue before proceeding.

[kiwipaul]

 You can’t declare an EC meeting to be a General Meeting – different requirements for notice and agenda apply to the two types of meeting.

But you can declare a future meeting as a GM provided you supply the correct notice and agenda (EC requires an agenda as well).

EC meeting requires 72 hours notice.

GM requires 7 days notice.

 

[Author]

Replies