Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The problem with being too pedantic and formal for simple approvals is that owners get frustrated at having simple matters held up waiting for approval so they go ahead in any case. This breeds a culture in which approvals are not sought and regrettable changes are made, not always bad enough to justify heavy-handed action to reverse but part of a gradual erosion of the appearance of the property. Prompt approval by email with later minuting at a formal meeting encourages people to do the right thing and get approval. That makes it easier for the committee to intervene before it is too late to get improvements in owners' proposals that avoid the cumulative erosion of the architectural style of our set of townhouses.
In practice, past committees have been very timid about reversing unilateral actions of owners so it is good to develop a culture of compliance. Our present committee is the first in 30 years (to my knowledge) to issue Article Infringement Notices (after talking and nice letters), the first step in the formal process leading to a ruling from ACAT (the ACT equivalent of CTTT). All that is to remove some fences erected by owners on common property, that would be within our power to just demolish if we cared to go that way.
Our EC quite often approves various things out of session by email when it is something really simple and exactly the same as things we have approved previously, consistent with our published guidelines etc. However, we then make a point of minuting such approvals at our next formal meeting. If the proposal is more complex or unusual we wait till our next formal meeting which is typically about once every 2 months.
The ACT Unit Titles Act section 129 is about breaches of Articles. It sets out quite clearly what must be included in an Article Infringement Notice. You most likely have an Article about not allowing your unit to be used in a manner that causes nuisance. An owner can request an Article Infringement Notice be issued. If you do all the work the EC/OC might have no choice but to issue the notice. If the nuisance does not cease after a valid Notice is issued the owner commits an offence. What I am suggesting is that this might force the Dept. Housing to deal with the matter. Still you will need to have a good case well documented.
If the weather has been cool and the clothes are not quite dry, how is leaving them overnight different from taking the two jumpers in and hanging them out again first thing in the morning? If only our issues were some simple. Our EC had to show up at ACAT (the ACT tribunal) because a couple of owners did not like some potential expenses anticipated in the sinking fund plan that was passed 50 to 10.
I know that at our meetings the managing agent routinely announces at the start if any units are unfinancial but turns a blind eye to trivial amounts, say $20 down to a few cents. Sensible really.
In the ACT we can charge penalty interest on unpaid levies. We have not often had an issue and have on rare occasions waived the interest but charging interest is a significant motivator. What about in NSW?
Are there other upgrades to facilities that would be of interest to those uninterested in Foxtel? Perhaps a range of facilities could be proposed where all might see benefit in at least one of those things. We have a tennis court but not everyone plays tennis. We have a playground but not everyone has children or grandchildren. Not everyone uses the BBQ.
Generally people don’t begrudge the facilities that are used by only a subset of owners. Those things all went in quite a while ago. Now things have ossified a bit and we are getting arguments along those lines. We had a recent proposal to set up a community garden (we have a large area of land) where residents might have a fair sized vegetable plot (or share one if they didn’t want so much).
We have enough in reserves to not need a special levy to set it up. Once established well with a possum-resistant fence and landscaping around and so on it would have no on-going costs to owners. We had had one in the late 70s, early 80s so our Articles had a section to govern how it would run. It would have used $95/unit out of savings to set up well.
Nonetheless, the proposal failed to get majority support, with some objecting to paying for something some wouldn’t use. I thought I would enjoy seeing and meeting my neighbours out in the garden even if I didn’t have a plot. Over time I though many units would use the garden as people’s lives changed and they gave up or took up vegie growing. Sadly, a majority did not see it this way.
clive2000 said:
Needless to say, our 15 year plan is lightweight and doesn’t allow for much work to be done until well over the half way mark, even though we are having issues in year 4. It is not worth the paper it is written on.
Does it nominate particular years for particular tasks to be performed? Our previous sinking fund plan was prepared in house by a previous treasurer. Our current on was prepared professionally. The earlier plan said we would resurface roads (for example) in a particular year. The later plan used an annual cost of ownership of a certain number of square meters of asphalt.
According to the earlier plan you would say we were quite a few years overdue for resurfacing because it didn’t happen in the life of that plan. However, the work is simply not needed yet and probably isn’t needed for another 10 years. We have done a few very minor patches at very minor expense and there simply is no more work required.
Still, partly because of the different presentation of the plans, we had some owners convinced that the EC was neglecting maintenance and somehow not putting enough aside. A reality check on the professional plan showed that over the period it would accumulate about the right amount for what the job cost last time we did it after accounting for inflation and also it was consistent with a quote an owner obtained.
Nonetheless, in spite of being I’m sure more diligent than most, we had a few owners stirring up angst who refused to believe we were being reasonable. Sometimes it is tough on the most diligent ECs, especially in a large complex where it is hard to get around to talk to everyone, if some are determined to undermine.
On the original question, I can see no reason why a good 10 year plan would not include planning to save up about half the anticipated cost of some expense than might be expected to occur after 20 years, anticipating that the rest would be accumulated in the second 10 year plan. Obviously in preparing the second plan you would check that the amounts being levied were still on track for an updated estimate of the cost of that 20 year expense.
struggler said:
Have often thought that there should be some sort of limitation to people being on the EC … We now have a ruling that if you are on the EC, you cannot vote on matters concerning your own unit.
People don't do that as a matter of course? I have always observed that EC members here expect to absent themselves from decisions in which they have a particular interest.
At a recent AGM we had a motion put by an owner that anyone who had been on the EC for 3 consecutive years should stand down and not seek reelection for another year. It was transparently aimed at a couple of members who had put proposals for common property improvements that this owner had disliked. Plenty of past EC members spoke of the importance of continuity and corporate memory and the difficulty of finding anyone to stand. The motion was voted down resoundingly.
Re the original question, what is the limit on the EC size in NSW? In the ACT it is 7 (unless a special resolution makes it greater). Is a voting procedure given? Here it is not. We have generally taken nominations and done one of two things. We have generally had fewer than 8 nominations and we have just had one motion to accept all the nominations. Once the chair decided we would vote on all nominees separately. I think she did that because one absent owner had written on his proxy form to vote against two particular EC members if they were nominated (one was me). As it happened those two members were reelected resoundingly but the person mentioned in the paragraph above became the only person ever to nominate then fail to get onto our EC.
Read the ACT. Get the numbers to call a general meeting at which a motion is put about owners appropriating common property.
Or, make the complaint to the EC as if about any owner doing the wrong thing. If nothing is done you have more ammunition.
If it is unlikely to actually do any harm for the upstairs units to have their tanks in the roof space, why not just have a bylaw that says those units owners are responsible for the maintenance of tanks connected to their units and responsible for any costs that the OC might incur as a consequence of them being there, say one leaked and damaged the common property or a unit. It would require a certain brazen disregard for simple decency if the upstairs units would not agree, seeing as they are getting the benefit of putting their tank out of the way.
In the ACT a Unit Titles Management amendments bill has been presented but not yet enacted. It includes a line that says rules (articles):
“An amendment to the rules of an owners corporation has no effect to the extent that it results in the rules— … prohibiting or restricting the installation, operation or maintenance of sustainability or utility infrastructure.”
I think that means we could not put a ban on the installation or use of clotheslines. I think we might get away with restricting installation across the driveway if a favourable location was provided or balcony drying allowed.
As it happens, in our set of townhouses, we have one person to my knowledge who thinks we should all have electric dryers but the rest of are happy to use this most cost-effective example of solar equipment.
I'm not expert at all but…
If the bollard is a common design installed according to standards, or at least the same way as is commonly done, I would guess there is not much risk of liability. Otherwise, much would depend on whether 'your' parking spot is common property (OC responsibility) or part of your unit area (your responsibility). The EC could remove it if it is on common property. The EC might still be able to have it removed if it is on your property but might need some external authority to justify that.
If the bollard is not a standard commercial product but something dodgy or jury-rigged there might be some justification for thinking it risky.
Those would be my guesses.
We have dealt with a few apparently abandoned cars. The process differed depending on various factors.
1) the car was on common property. One phone call to the police fixed it because it was listed as stolen.
2) the car was not stolen but on the bit of 'our' road that is actually a public road. A phone call to 'Canberra connect' (general local govt. enquiries line) fixed it. They attached a warning notice and took the car away some time later.
3) the car was on common property, the police said it was not reported as stolen but it looked abandoned, had not moved for a years or so. Local govt. advised that we would have to follow a process outlined in the 'uncollected goods act'-fairly complex. We put a notice in the newsletter and it turned out to belong to a tenant who bought it for a relative just before the relative got ill etc. He still had plans for it and was quite entitled to park it in the general parking area. Eventually the car was fixed up and left.
Parking spaces can be complicated. In our class B units in the ACT there are parking places with four different sorts of status. Some are entirely within the footprints of the unit/lot area on the unit plan. Others are on special 'unit subsidiaries' adjacent to unit areas. Then we have some large, shared parking areas on common land for the units that are not of the first two kinds. Originally none of the spaces were covered or allocated. The original planning guidelines at the time of construction required provision of 2 spaces per 3+ bedroom unit and one space per <3 bedroom unit. Some of those spaces remain uncovered and unallocated. Other spaces have been covered and allocated under a contract between the OC and particular owners. Individual owners receive a 'special privilege' for the exclusive use of particular spaces in exchange for agreeing to cover the OC's cost for the construction and maintenance of the carport over the space. The EC only allocates new spaces and approves further carport construction in line with the original planning guidelines so that spaces are not over allocated to some owners to the exclusion of other owners.
It seems to work though some owners don't like it when the EC decides all the common area carparks need a spruce up and the carport licensees will have to pay.