Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Here is the full requirement
Schedule 2 section 31
(3) The secretary of an executive committee or, in the secretary’s absence,
any member of the executive committee must convene an extraordinary
general meeting as soon as practicable after receiving a requisition for
such a meeting signed by one or more persons entitled to vote in respect
of one or more lots, the unit entitlement or the sum of the unit
entitlements of which is at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit
entitlements.This to me seems to be a license for an unscrupulous Sec to ignore the requests of 25% of the strata that have requested an EGM to resolve an issue because it leaves it up to the Sec to decide when to hold the meeting because the term “as soon as practicable” could be interpreted as the next AGM if he is so inclined.
Austman said
This is not about obtaining extra, lost, misplaced or damaged swipes where I agree the owner should pay. It’s replacing a faulty one – that was supplied by the OC.
I totally agree Austman you are entitled to 2 working keys for all your doors and it is up to the OC to provide them at no cost. If they claim that it is your fault they would have to prove you damaged the keys (otherwise what is to stop an unscrupulous SM disabling keys at random and then claiming the resident needs to purchase a new key from him).
Also the SM doesn’t make this decision it is the EC or OC that makes the call (or whatever they are called in your state).
Sounds to me like the REA is looking to increase his remuneration by a dodgy practice. You are entitled to 2 working keys to all doors giving access to your studio and this is the responsibility of the owner or his rep (REA). The only time you can be charged is if asking for an extra key or you have lost or damaged one of the keys provided.
Phone the tenancy helpline.
Their is no casting vote each vote carries the same entitlement in committee. If a committee decision is 3 votes all the motion is lost and it doesn’t matter how the Chair voted
The committee cannot remove the SM only the OC can do that by a simple majority vote.
You need 25% of owners to request an EGM so if you can get 25% of owners to sign a simple request for an EGM it must happen.
Once you have 25% of owners submit 2 motions to remove current SM and replace with your choice of SM with the EGM request or wait until AGM and submit said motion then.
You just need an ordinary motion passed at the next AGM or at a EGM before that stating that the Strata wish to terminate the current SM with xx days notice (check what notice is required in their contract).
A simple majority of those voting is required (or if different lot entitlements a majority of entitlements).
It might pay to get a replacement SM lined up with another motion to employ company xx on termination date of current SM.
The only problem would be if the current SM has a long fixed term contract with penalties if early termination so check their contract
MJ you have got to decide which is more important getting the repairs done or trying to please all the owners. As was said the motion to raise a special levy should have included the detail about how it was going to be raised and I would say if it didn’t it defaults to all in one hit.
BEWARE
If you let this drag on the owners might realize they could call an EGM (only requires 7 days notice) to overturn the original motion to raise the levy. Even if you raise it by a levy of $1,000 / month you need to get the first levy statement out to all the owners ASAP with an early pay by date such that those that don’t pay are then non financial and unable to obstruct your plans (until they pay).
I agree with Whale you’ve had the vote and it passed by 3 for 2 against so get your SM to issue special levy to pay for the repairs (it doesn’t matter that 1 has changed their minds as the vote is all that counts).
Don’t wait and give the others a chanced to call an EGM to re-vote the issue because once the levy has been sent out by the SM and the due date has passed the ones that haven’t paid are then non financial so ineligible to vote on any motion until they pay this special levy.
Once the special levy has been received by the Strata it is virtually impossible to get it repaid and so you will find it easier to get the repairs done once the cash is available.
One solution to unapproved alterations which end up being asked to be repaired by the Strata is for the strata to check the plans and restore the roof to it’s original size and remove and extension.
The new owner should only be allowed to repair (as opposed to the Strata removing it) the extension IF they get a SBL passed accepting the responsibility for the extension.
If they repair it without an SBL then the work they have done is illegal and they can be asked to remove it at their cost (because they are now the owner who made the change as opposed to inheriting it).
You don’t say which state you are in and that makes a HUGE difference.
Assuming this is NSW the colorbond roofing is def the strata responsibility but the hot water system is it a shared system or does each townhouse have their own self contained system.
The components within the house (tank) are the owners responsibility.
As their are no SBL then the roof assembly would be common (assuming individual systems) property and so the Strata would be well within it’s rights to remove them unless individual owners accepted responsibility for them.
@loretta1 said:
Initially I rented it out to others in the industry in the same predicament, but since joining Air B n B I’m able to meet the expense of maintaining a second home in Sydney much more easily. My minimum stay is 2 weeks and I screen the applicants carefully- it is my second home and they are using all my stuff.I’m with Jimmy on this one but I think you are an ideal landlord but our argument is against those who are not. You say your apartment is in a block NOT classed long term residential and so what you are doing is perfectly legal and owners buying into it have to accept that it is going to be occupied by holiday makers.
I’m sure that if you were staying in the apartment during Nov and schoolies moved into either side you would not be impressed so how much worse is it for residents of apartments classed as residential to have to put up with the same disruption.
A lot of holiday makers have a different mind set to long term residents and exhibit a different behavior and people buying into long term residential property don’t want this sort of behavior.
Just get the Sec / Chairperson to tell the SM to transfer the funds (remember the SM works for you (the owners) and has to comply with your wishes). If they object you might have to pass a motion by the EC instructing the SM to do this.
Sometimes it’s a bit of a grey area where the money comes from but ultimately it is the EC or OC that makes the decision (under advisement from the SM) not the SM themselves.
@Whale said:
After adding-in all the changes to Common Property that the O/C had itself made over the years, the Register was then closed-off, and at the next General Meeting it was specially resolved to Register a Special By-Law stating in very specific terms that any changes, alterations etc not shown from time-to-time in that Register were un-consented by the O/C, and that the responsibility for maintaining and repairing those was the responsibility absolutely of the Owner/s from time-to-time of the Lot/s concerned.
I agree what you are doing is admirable and it should work but the Strata Act in NSW transfers the responsibility of any alterations to common property to the OC once the lot is sold and I don’t believe a bylaw can conflict with the Act and win.
If this was the case why don’t the default strata bylaws in NSW introduce such a bylaw when the building is first registered to eliminate this ridiculous problem of the strata being lumbered with unauthorized alterations.
Whale I fully agree with what you are doing but I have my doubts about whether it would work if challenged.
Whale I don’t know what the problem is but some of the entries don’t show up in the list down the left hand side and this is one of those initially as this is the first time I’ve seen it and I log on most days.
As to OP problem if you have the default bylaws their is this
19. Notice of a change of lot usage
An occupier must give the owners corporation notice if the use of the lot changes and the insurance premium for the scheme changes, for example change to a hazardous activity using chemicals or change from residential use to commercial or industrial use.So check your bylaws.
If you have this sort of bylaw inform the owner (not the tenant) that you have informed the insurance company and they want to know what sort of business is being run from the lot and they estimate that the lot owner will be liable for an extra premium of approx $X,XXX due to the change of use. Don’t inform the insurance co just tell the owner you have to put the wind up him.
If that doesn’t discourage him ask him for a previous phone bill showing multiple lines being paid for and until you have this nothing will be done.
@Cosmo said:
Refer STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 1996 – SECT 75A. Wherein legislation was passed to ‘phase in’ mandatory 10-year sinking fund plans beginning from July, 2006 for all NSW Strata Schemes. Essentially all NSW Owners Corporations now have to have 10-year sinking fund plans done for their Strata Schemes in an effort to eliminate the problems of ‘insufficient long term capital works funding’ .
Yes I agree this is what the act says but how do you enforce it, the SM cannot because he works for the strata, the EC won’t because they must have voted not to have one at the AGM and so the only people who can enforce it are individual owners and they would have to go to conciliation and then adjudication to get an Adjudicator to order the Strata to implement this part of the act.
How many owners do you think would waste their time going to NCAT to increase their own strata fees. My opinion is if they did this they would win but the cost could be huge as more then likely the Adjudicator would decide the sinking fund levy rate.
@TC said:
Hi Whale,A mtg was called, but I was unable to attend (overseas)
Terry
A casual meeting is not enough to authorize this it must be a property constituted EGM (or AGM) with an agenda sent to all owners and the motion proposing this must specify it as a Special Resolution and then this motion must be passed by a vote of 75% of those voting in favor.
The minutes of this meeting must also have been distributed to all owners.
If any of these things did not happen you can challenge (or refuse to allow the change) until you are satisfied the decision has been taken according to the act.