Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
With an EC of only 2 if both vote on any issue then they both must vote the same for a motion to pass. If one is for and one against the motion fails, each member only has 1 vote and it doesn’t matter if 1 is chairperson, secretary and treasurer his vote is worth just the same an ordinary committee member.
So any spending that the offender requests via a EC motion the second EC member has power of veto just by voting against the motion.
As for the insurance claim the SM should authorize the claim before it’s submitted otherwise the insurance company will reject it.
Suggest you make sure you get on the EC at next AGM.
Changing unit entitlements is a serious business and it cannot be done by the OC alone. Once the OC has voted to change the entitlements they then have to go to an Adjudicator (who would require valuations done on the lots to validate the change) to have their request accepted or rejected and then the change has to be registered with the Gov dept.
The OC and Strata manager should hold a Strata Roll showing everything that is relevant to the complex (unit entitlements, plans, lot entitlements, etc). Their might be a charge for examining this and so an alternative would be to obtain a copy from the Gov dept which would be a guaranteed copy of the details registered with the state. In QLD it cost about $25 to obtain a copy.
Another advantage you have whilst the owners haven’t paid their dues is that they are unable to vote (at a committee meeeting or owners meeting AGM) untill the debt is cleared. So it might suit your purpose to keep quiet about this untill you have a meeting and then tell the chairperson to reject their vote. They can attend the meeting and have their say it’s just they cannot vote.
This is a fundamental fact and it applies to most states and so any Strata Manager should be well aware of it.
+1 to what Jimmy said
Also I know it’s not much but any overdue strata fees can be charged an interest rate of 10% / year until payed. (in QLD it’s 30% and so I’m more than happy to see late payments as where else can we earn 30% interest).
Also make sure the SM slugs the overdue lot owners any extra charges that the SM incurs due to late payment.
Agree with Whale but you can use the law to your advantage. The BC is reasponsible for replaceing the floor tiles with like for like so if owners want better quality tiles that requires a Special Resoloution (as it’s considered an improvement) which means it requires 75% (of votes cast) to vote in favour of motion.
So explain to all owners that wouldn’t it be better to let them all decide for themselves what tiles they want fitted and when rather than the BC doing it and installing the same tiles for everyone.
Assuming you are in NSW otherwise this advise could be wrong / irreverent
According to the “Identifying common property in a strata scheme: update on common Memoranda” provided by NSW
c. Original floor tiles and associated waterproofing affixed to common property floors. Strata responsibility.
So the original floor tiles are BC (Body Corporate (for Jimmy’s ref)) responsibility, but the BC as a whole at an AGM decides whether to replace ALL the tiles in ALL the lots by a majority vote. Individual lot owners can at their own cost replace their tiles if AGM votes against doing them all but from then on these lot owners become responsible for the new tiles.
a. Floor tiles affixed after the registration of the strata plan. Lot responsibility
If some owners have damaged their tiles it’s an insurance job to replace the broken tiles (and just the broken tiles providing they were original).
If some owners don’t like the tiles that are fitted I believe they should be allowed to replace them at their own cost (unless a majority at AGM vote to replace them all for everyone).
Also any lot owners who have already replaced the tiles at their own expense are no longer eligible for them to be replace again at BC expense because they are now lot owners responsibility now.
@Whale said:
…. because IF the pergola’s actually been authorised by the Owners Corporation (O/C) by way of Special Resolution (to add to the Common Property) and the resultant By-Law is silent on the subject of on-going maintenance, then it is still valid and by default the O/C is responsible for all maintenance.
Whale I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said but it seems to me that this is an open invitation for unscrupulous owners to get Special Resolutions passed for alterations and forgetting to include who is responsible for the maintenance. 99% of owners would not be aware of this catch and would happily approve an alteration expecting the onus for maintenance to fall on the lot owner.
Taking this to the extreme a lot owner could obtain permission for an extension with no indication of who is responsible for maintenance and then put up a shoddy structure and expect the OC to bring it up to scratch claiming it’s OC responsibility to maintain.
I’m of the opinion the OC should only be responsible for the original structure and only alterations the OC has paid for (that is my understanding of the rules in QLD).
Don’t understand why he required an Exclusive Use Bylaw for his courtyard which would generally be an exclusive use area anyway, especially if it was fenced originally.
He would require a bylaw authorizing the Pergola to be erected and it should also have stated who was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure (lot owner). Was this done and was the bylaw registered with the Gov dept.
Assuming it was registered with the Gov and their was nothing in the bylaw referring to responsibility for maintenance of the structure, then as the completed structure is not what was approved by the Strata then it’s not the responsibility of the Strata to maintain (it may well have been the Strata responsibility if what was on the plan was what was built and nothing in bylaw declared whose responsibility maintenance was).
@Whale said:
Whilst not disputing that payment of the Invoice was the Owners Corporation’s responsibility, I contacted the Property Manager to request an Invoice from the electrical contractors made out to the Owners Corporation (O/C) [because I don’t pay third-party invoices], and because I wanted to determine the background to the invoiced works – about which the O/C had no prior advice.
I tend to disagree, the faulty wiring serves only one unit and the cause of the problem was the a/c unit (which is totally lot owners responsibility). The damage was caused by an incompetent contractor employed by the property manager and so the contractors insurance (or contractor or property manager) should pick up the bill for the damaged wiring.
I don’t see why the OC should pick up the bill for this automatically as their was nothing wrong with the wiring or fuse.
It sets a dangerous precedent for the OC to pay for repairs caused by other peoples incompetence especially when they had no say in the matter.
Surely if the Strata have appropriated owners parking spaces that are assigned to individual lots to use as access to the Strata then the strata must have passed a Special Resolution bylaw to obtain these parking spaces AND obtained the lot owners written permission from those who lost their parking spaces.
If this was not done surely the lot owners who have lost their parking spaces can go to adjudication to have them re-instated which is well within the power of an adjudicator.
Strata CANNOT seize lot property without the written permission of the lot owner affected.
In QLD changing the exterior color of a building has been considered an alteration to common property and so requires a SR (an interpretation I think is crazy).
Agreeing to a motion without any quotes whatsoever is giving the people who proposed this motion (EC?) virtually a blank cheque to do whatever they like and all owners will have to foot the bill.
At the very least at the AGM a max spending limit should be added to the motion to limit your expenditure. If cost (or quote or estimate) goes beyond this limit EC have to come back to owners for further approval.
Ideally you should have at least 2 detailed quotes showing what is going to be done and the cost before you vote on the item and you should advise everybody before the AGM to vote AGAINST the motion unless quotes are supplied.
@Boronia said:
Why aren’t owners/agents required to get a clearance from the OC before refunding bond money?
Nothing to stop the EC billing the owner of the lot whos tenants made the mess, this might make him check in the future. Owner is reasponsible for his lot and should pass on this reasponsibility to any tenants.
My understanding is their is no exception of privacy on the common areas (think of street cameras of which their are millions). If the camera was aimed at a private yard on the lot, or a window within the private yard you might have problems. Not to sure about CCTV aimed at a common swimming pool within the strata (quite a lot have security cameras in this area anyway).
CCTV aimed at a swimming pool within the lot would def be clear breech in my opinion.
Ok in QLD it seems that you cannot clamp, but reading the act it does seem to indicate that you can TOW if you have a correctly worded bylaw.
6) However, subsection (5) does not limit a right a person may have to remove, or cause to be removed, from land a vehicle parked or stopped on the land.
But then it goes on to say
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to a person who has detained a vehicle in contravention of subsection (1)(c).
Section (1)(c) and this says you cannot clamp a vehicle, so now I’m not sure whether you can or cannot tow in QLD