Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Who authorized the repairs and instructed the plumber?
Any spending needs to be authorized by a vote of the EC at the very least.
If the leak was caused by improper cleaning then it is the owners / tenants responsibility.
The OP could ask for the Strata insurance to pay for the repairs to their lot as they were the innocent party.
An Executive Committee cannot vote to overturn any decision of the Owners Corporation taken at an AGM so this is not an option.
You need to explain how this lot owner bought 2% of the unit entitlement as these aren’t something you can buy and sell to the best of my knowledge.
Did he buy 2% of the land of the older owner if so you could look at whether this was done legally and were all the dots and t’s were crossed because if it wasn’t done correctly he would only have 24% and not enough to stop you proceeding.
@Kendall said:
If there is a majority vote to overturn the special levy collection at this point is there any reason that cannot be done?
Thankyou so much for any advice you can give me.
Kind rgdsAny EGM or AGM decision can be overturned by another motion at the next EGM or AGM with this proviso.
If the SM sends out the levy invoice and any owner pays that invoice then the levy could not be cancelled. The reason for this is that any surplus money in the Strata account can only be returned to owners after a unanimous vote to do so.
So if you want this levy overturned you need to organize an EGM ASAP because an EC meeting cannot overturn an EGM motion. The SM could also be considered negligent if he doesn’t send out the levy notice that was approved at the EGM because he works for the OC and he must carry out their duly authorized request (via the motion that approved the levy).
TELL the SM not to pay the bill because it is unapproved work and to prove it send them a letter signed by as many of the other EC members as possible stating they had not approved this spending.
If the bill has been paid tell the SM to invoice the EC member who authorized the bill for the full amount (after you have given the SM the letter signed by at least 50% of the EC).
Ask this fire inspector for a copy of the regulations that require the removal of door chains. Just 1 incident involving a door chain would not require the removal of ALL door chains throughout Oz.
Their is always a balance between security and fire safety, and if you remove all locks from all doors you can then have unimpeded exit in case of fire but your chances of continuing to live their without being burgled or assaulted is slim.
Tell the Inspection company that you want a different inspector next time unless he produces the regulations that he claims you are breaching.
@alinka said:
The response from our strata manager was that he can’t issue Notice to Comply, because the EC needs to supply a picture, showing the person entering or leaving the car. Apparently this is the law now.
Alinka
That is total rubbish. The SM works for the OC and so if the EC tells him to do something he has to do it (providing it’s legal). Ask him for where in the strata act this requirement is referenced. Think of the SM as a Strata Administrator who does the admin for the strata and any decisions he has to refer back to the EC or OC.
The Sec is perfectly able to issue a Notice to Comply (NTC) himself but he must first pass a motion authorizing the EC to issue a NTC against this person The SM can only issue a NTC if it has been authorized to do so via a general motion (or in it’s contract) in the past allowing the SM to issue them.
Also an NTC is only valid for 12 months from the date of issue.
A bylaw cannot restrict access to your lot and the parking space is part of your lot. They can restrict what you park their (no trailers, boats, etc) so long as they apply it to everyone but you can park whatever vehicle you like their as long as you like.
You seem to be saying these are all holiday flats and you don’t live their so the tenant can park their or you can with your tenants permission (assuming parking space is included in the holiday let).
A bylaw restricting your right to send emails is unenforceable and should be ignored.
@kaindub said:
The OC insurance will not cover the damage to the door. The insurance company will try and recover the cost from the ” guilty” party.
We had a case in our block, where a tenant reversed into a garage door. Their car insurance covered the ( replacement) of the door.
The whole point of having insurance is to be covered for accidents, if the insurance doesn’t cover accidents then what is the point of having it.
You admit that the insurance covered the damage to your garage door did they then go after the offender who reversed into it.
I don’t know the full story that is why I qualified my reply with it must be accidental and not malicious, etc.
You are in an impossible situation with an unreasonable chairperson. I agree with everything Whales says and if your chairperson was reasonable that is the way to go.
Doing it legally you could end up paying for an EC meeting, EGM, cost of a SBL only to have the SBL rejected at the EGM, all of which could take 12 months. You would then be faced with going to conciliation and adjudication with a 50-50 chance of winning.
My solution would be to get the job done and keep quite about it (you say it’s not visible from outside the unit) and nobody is any the wiser. If they found out about it they would have to take you to conciliation and adjudication.
You could then advise that others have been allowed to do alterations without approval and the chairperson is acting without the approval of the EC or OC for some of his decisions.
Ask to be shown the motion (with votes) for some of the chairperson decisions by the EC or OC. These are required to be held by the SM for 5 years.
If we are talking here about accidental damage then the garage door and its mechanism is the *Owners Corporation’s responsibility and is covered by its building building insurance, so hand the problem to the *Strata Manager (assuming the garage door faces common property).
You would be liable for the insurance excess but the insurance should pick up the bill for the repairs to the garage door. The structural repairs are also the *Owners Corporation’s responsibility and it will have to pay for them.
The insurance might decide the garage door has been so badly maintained that it’s a maintenance issue and so refuse to pay. In that case you have no liability as it’s all the *Owners Corporation’s cost.
(* numerous confusing acronyms removed by Whale!)
@Jimmyt53 said:
KP, what you say about chasing the bad debts is absolutely right but you lost me on your argument that the reason for the special levy is so that the strata manager can earn commissions.I read it as though they are paying insurance (to the insurance co) for the next 2 years ie in advance and if so the SM earns a commission from the premium.
Maybe they mean they are collecting the premium in advance and holding it in the admin fund which would be ok and no commission would be due the SM until it was paid to the insurance company (which sounds more likely on reflection).
I would strongly suspect that why they are paying in advance is because they get paid a commission on the insurance premium.
What they should be doing is handing the 5 largest debits over to a debt collector to recover the money and any penalty interest accrued. The cost of recovering the debit is borne by owner in debit.
Once these have been collected go for the next 5 making sure all owners are aware of the process especially the extra cost the debtors will incur once its handed over to the debit collector.
You might need a motion passed for this to occur but those in debit cannot vote anyway so shouldn’t be a problem.
Yes you are correct the SM works for the owners and the owners decide whether to raise a special levy or not via voting on a motion.
Yep the posting works again now
Thanks JT
1) Any gov, state or local legislation takes precedence over any bylaws and if the bylaws conflict with any law the bylaw looses.
2) Generally Structural repairs are the responsibility of the Strata unless a bylaw has been duly passed transferring that responsibility to the lot. Cosmetic repairs are the responsibility of whoever is responsible for the item (common property or lot property).
3) yes responsibility for common property can be transferred to lot owner (and subsequent owners) by a special bylaw being passed and registered with the state gov.
Structural items (especially in a unit situation) should not be transferred to lot owners and in your situation I would say the original balcony balustrades are still OC responsibility but the additions belong to the lot owners and the only thing the OC are obliged to do are remove them if considered unsafe as they are unapproved additions.
The SM doesn’t make these decisions the EC or OC do, so get the Sec to TELL the SM to approve the quote and start the repairs and to explain to all owners why their is not enough funds available if that is the case. If the cost has gone up you might require another vote to approve the new quote and I’m not sure if postal voting is allowed in WA (to speed up the process rather than have an EGM).
Remember the SM works for the owners and is their to do the bidding of the owners.