Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just confirming Lady Penelope’s comments – In NSW, the Chairperson is not responsible for the day to day activities of a strata scheme – eg. calling meetings, engaging with the SM – that is the role of the Secretary.
It may be that your SM is upset with you for seeming to take charge. But having said that, SM should have the ability to discuss and explain to you without causing offence.
If more than one committee member (usually the Secretary) conducts email exchanges with SM they can be overwhelmed. After all, if a committee has 9 members they cannot all do their own thing.
It seems to me that your committee should meet to review the roles of office-bearers and clear up any confusion. That may also go so me way to fostering a team approach.
Sounds like you are a proactive person, so swapping your role to Secretary may work better for everyone.
I agree with Jimmy – and it works!
We have twice now placed a very carefully worded motion on a strata committee meeting agenda and an AGM agenda about a particular person’s behaviour.
In our case, we were able not to name the person, but rather the position they held.
So far, so good.
JT is correct. First step is to ask for mediation at Fair Trading.
Also start gathering your ‘evidence’ – that is noise logs, copies of letters/emails between the parties, description of noise, and notes on how the noise affects you and others (stomping, rolling balls, disturbs sleep, etc).
This will help organise your experience and build your case if you need to go to NCAT.
Thank Jimmy.
The debate is whether removing the tiles, located in kitchen and hallways, to replace with timber, will damage existing waterproofing (if any) – which is a ‘major’ renovation.
In our scheme, some tiled hallways abut laundry and bathroom areas – with a different tile.
Are kitchen floor tiles considered to be ‘wet’ areas?
Sty – doesn’t appear that you are getting much support, from either the strata managing agent or other owners.
I am not a lawyer – but if in your shoes, I would likely go down the mediation/NCAT (are you in NSW?) path rather than try to address the strata manager’s questions (which they should be able to advise in any case).
The first step would be to apply for mediation with the strata managing agent. No matter the outcome of the mediation, you would at least have some of your questions answered and a door would open to apply to NCAT to have the strata manager dismissed.
As a lot owner, you can apply to Fair Trading yourself – you do not need permission from committee, strata manager or other owners. However, you will need to be prepared for a push-back defensive response.
I have followed this path myself, and whilst it did not lead to the dismissal of the strata managing agent (which I did not ask for but was my next step), it has lead to proper processes being put in place.
In regards to legal fees – we use two motions
1. That the SP ???? resolve to obtain legal services in relation to…….. and concerning ……….
2. That the SP ???? resolves to engage ????? to act on its behalf in the provision of legal services referred to in previous motion and all matters incidental thereto in accordance with their cost agreement and disclosure dated ????
JT – Thank you. Have added that to my arsenal.
What I particularly like is that the complainant would have to take the action, not the committee….?
In our scheme, the committee always advises the complainant that they can take their complaint directly to Fair Trading/NCAT or they can wait for the committee to go through due process (which takes much longer as we try to resolve the issue internally).
This is the first time (in 10 years of our existence) that we have had to go to NCAT for a noise complaint.
Thanks LP. We have considered a by-law for washing machines, but then we might need one for vacuuming, treadmills and the like.
We do have a ‘machinery by-law’, but again no time restrictions – but noise cannot go above “5dB(A) above the background noise level when measured at the boundary of the lot”.
Which is not overly helpful at 1.00am on a Sunday morning.
So for now, we have relied on the noise by-law. Seems to me committees can get by-lawed out at times, and when by-laws are challenged only a legally trained mind can sort through the pedantics.
I am certain that NCAT’s determination will make a difference to what we do from now on.
We will be very happy with either way the decision goes because then the committee can remove itself from being in the middle of the sandwich and bearing the brunt of anger from both sides.
SH – the term ‘requisitioned by’ has been standardly used by all our strata managers for years – but I confess I have never questioned the term. We are in NSW.
LP – Generally, I would agree with your last comments above. In our case, we are dealing with a very toxic person who has given our committee grief for years. All attempts to resolve his issues have failed.
So, we have given up and are now working towards having this particular person formerly identified as vexatious – whilst still addressing his concerns through the proper channels.
Unit1 – Yes, I agree completely.
We have a situation where a lot owner thinks it ‘unfair and unreasonable’ not to be allowed to run his washing machine at 1.00am – despite the fact that it wakes residents of two adjacent lots. He argues there are no by-laws in place that prevent his using his washing machine at a time that suits him. And he reasons that our by-law 1 (noise) is not applicable because it does not reference noise from washing machines.
So guess where we are next week? We are trusting NCAT will be ‘fair and reasonable’.
So, yes – unfairness is subjective and it is important for committees to take a stand if there are proper grounds and if the opponents point of view has been properly considered.
We have a similar situation – but with only 12 motions not hundreds!
As Secretary, rather than enter into a dispute about their validity, I have added all the motions to the agenda, along with the statement that they were ‘Requisitioned by ……..’.
Without exception, all the proposed motions are either unlawful, enforceable or are not in a form of a motion – so they can be declared ‘out of order’ by the Chair (SSMA s19) and not therefore no vote will be taken.
Our agenda is now 75 pages long without attachments (? another 70 odd pages).
Hopefully, this particular lot owner will be discouraged from pulling that prank again.
Hi Unit 1
I am no lawyer, but do have some thoughts on your dilemma.
You made the comment that the Member asked ‘why/I had not granted him these things’?
Could it be that, although due process was followed (as evidenced by minutes etc), that your decision to ‘not grant’ was unreasonable or unfair? In which case the Tribunal can override decisions of the committee/OC.
Does the fact that the complainant showed up with virtually no documentation show a level of confidence?
You do not give any indication of what the dispute is about, so am just playing devil’s advocate here.
Certainly the Tribunal is required to base their decisions on the law, but if they err then an appeal to a higher authority is an option.
Good luck with it all.
In the scenario of a ‘common by-law’ for all bathroom renovations – how is it recorded that the lot owner has accepted to be responsible for ongoing repairs of the common property that were changed during the renovation?
I get it that a ‘common by-law’ gives permission to do the works, but does it also ensure that the lot owner has consented to ongoing repairs and maintenance?
Hi Sydprop
We have a motion on our agenda to adopt the common property memorandum. As you say, it does clear up a lot of issues – such as pipes and taps.
In our case, the only change that will affect current practice is the ‘intercom handset’ which is deemed the responsibility of lot owners.
Are you three individual strata plans in a community scheme?
Sounds odd that a strata plan without all its buildings built could be registered.