[peanuts23]

Jimmy-T wrote:

TrulEConcerned wrote:

The gang of three could just as easily say that they are keeping disruptive troublemakers away from the levers of power. In my experience at NCAT, I don’t think NCAT would buy such an argument, because it is subjective and cannot be proved.

That was intended as an example of a response to the excluded members saying – without evidence – that the committee members were being unreasonable. It’s the same argument, based on subjective opinions, not facts.

I have had further thoughts on this issue & would appreciate your thoughts

At the next AGM or earlier if the opportunity presents, put the following motion on the agenda along the following lines 1 – that any owner who nominates & accepts a nomination to be on the strata committee will consider to be a member subject to any restrictions under the Strata Management Act (NSW)

Ok I understand that having 3 V 3 owners that the motion is likely to be defeated, however it is on the agenda & into the minutes & will provide a forum to discuss why certain owners refuse to allow other owners to participate , who wish to do so.

The other motion is about restricting the SC from doing/acting above what restrictions the SM Act places on them. ( draft only wording)

That the Strata Committee must obtain all owners approval before acting upon the following

a – approving invoices above $1000.00

b – appointing any person or organisation to carry out work on the common property .

There may be more, I wanted to give you a flavour of the types of restrictions. The same outcome applies to this motion as the first ie that it stands to be defeated re 3v3. I also appreciate if by some hand of fate it actually got up then the restrictions would need to be practical & not over the top. Again it gets onto the agenda & forces a discussion about the way in which the current SC is operating ie in a shroud of secrecy.

Look forward to critical review

 

[peanuts23]

Thanks for your replies.

Part of the issue lies with the legislation that provides for the OC to nominate the number of SC members. If it were presented as the strata committee can be a maximum of 9, then it would allow the 3 excluded owners to join the committee.

Perhaps it is one of those unintentional consequences of the Act that it is used to exclude owners who have an interest in complex & want to contribute.

A couple of years back a previous owner who was really not interested in getting involved voted for 3 members( so 4 in favour 2 against) & so the issue not only continues today but is likely to continue until one of the 3 moves on.

To clarify the unit entitlement has 2 owners at 18%, 2 at 17% & 3 at 15%. it so happened that both side had one each of these entitlements. I will have a closer look at the suggested approaches, although it is fair to say the 3 incumbents would not be up for a negotated settlement .

[peanuts23]

Thanks for the replies.

The Common Property memorandum has a reference no. – AG520000X & I have dated it July 2020.Its in 2 parts. The first part at 2.14 j General . Owners Responsibility – it states “Skirting boards & architraves.Exception , where the skirting board & architraves are situated on a common wall , then they become the OC responsibility”

There is a second part which sets out the OC responsibilities for maintenance , repair & replacement. At point 6 General d – ” skirting boards, architraves & cornices on common property walls (other then painting ,which will be the lot owners responsibility)”

So it appears from your replies, that the skirting board on the common property wall is OC responsibility , the rest is the owners . The replacement & painting is the owners. So that halves the cost of eradication. It interesting that the replacement board on the common property wall is at the owners cost. So on one hand the OC pays for the eradication cost but not the replacement of the damaged board & painting. Not good logic, but then that’s strata?

As to the insurance claim, we are a small complex of 6 & with an insurer who views strata insurance as just another product. However it is worth serious consideration. If you ask they may say yes.

The comment about taking responsibility has happened already.

[Author]

Replies