Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think this may settle the size argument. From the shiny new NSW government strata website, in a section on pets, it says:
… by-laws banning all pets are not valid and banning animals based on size, type, or quantity, will not be valid in most circumstances.
There you go.
There would however still be the limits that apply to any household, strata or not. In the ACT at least, there are limits on the number of dogs or cats that anyone can have and there are a few dog breeds that are not permitted. If someone had 15 dogs or cats, an OC could at least use the by-law on complying with any applicable legislation to reduce such numbers.
…I suspect no one else will be willing to be on the committee at the AGM in a few weeks . Can we suggest being administered? …
Perhaps the committee’s last act should be to call a general meeting with two items on the agenda: 1) to elect a new committee and 2) to appoint an administrator in the event that motion 1 has failed to elect a new committee.
Some years ago, our committee was looking at some examples of Tribunal cases while considering an update to our animal keeping rules. I recall examples of owners corporations having rules to only allow dogs of less than a certain size. These were tossed out when challenged as arbitrary and unreasonable because of expert testimony that some very large dogs can be very happy and well-behaved lazing about quietly all day in a small apartment needing little exercise while some small dogs need frequent exercise, are prone to be noisy and agitated with the slightest stimulus and are unlikely to be suitable for an apartment.
We had a rules review some years ago since many of our rules adopted decades earlier were no longer relevant or had been superseded by provisions in the Act. We had a strata lawyer assist in this. One of the suggested rules was as follows:
“(1) The Owners Corporation (OC) may adopt by special resolution House Rules that shall be interpreted and adopted by the OC with the same force as the Rules of the OC.
(2) The House Rules are not OC Rules and shall only explain how the OC Rules shall operate.
(3) The Executive Committee shall have the power to enforce the policies in the House Rules adopted by the OC.”
This would let us tweak the details of some of our existing rules but it would still need a special resolution of a general meeting, not just the whim of the committee, to be enforceable. We have not made use of this rule. However, I imagine that it could be used to add specifics and detail to some of the generic default rules about not causing nuisance, excessive noise, interfering with ‘reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property’ etc. without the bother of registering a new specific rule.
I agree with JT that by-laws (aka Rules or Articles elsewhere) can be useful as a statement about agreed expected behaviour. Even when difficult to enforce, they can be useful.
It is not so different from the situation in the wider world. Most people, most of the time could easily get away with doing all sorts of things that are illegal but the mere fact of the illegality provides considerable deterrent.
No!
I’d say ‘maybe’. In the ACT at least, it is possible for an OC to resolve by special resolution to divide levies among owners by some method other than the usual in proportion to unit entitlements. The alternative method has to have a rational basis, be fair etc.
Where I live, we have a large property. The EC has simply got on with upgrading lighting in a piecemeal fashion over years, for both lighting quality and better electrical efficiency. We added a few lights in dark spots along paths and replaced existing fluoro tubes with LED DIY retrofit kits when they needed replacing. Where a fitting needed repair, we got an electrician to fit an LED fitting. We mentioned the improvements at various AGMs but it was never the subject of a new by-law or meeting resolution. The EC simply regarded it as part of its duty to repair and maintain and ensure safety.
The seminar here talks about just this topic https://www.lookupstrata.com.au/strata-webinars/
It addresses claims on contents insurance, via the liability aspect, by the person who failed to report a problem or impeded investigation and thereby made things worse.
In other words, register as many invalid by-laws as you like but don’t be surprised if, when you try to enforce them, an owner or tenant challenges them, and the Tribunal bounces them, saying they don’t have any “force or effect”
The principle here would be that it is up to the court system to determine whether a by-law has effect when someone seeks to obtain an order that depends on that by-law. It is not up to an office clerk doing the paperwork to register the by-law to determine whether it conflicts with any other law.
It seems to me that the Tribunal was asked to give orders in respect of a particular animal, for which there was no evidence. The Tribunal will only give an order that it is asked to give.
The Tribunal correctly noted that the by-law was in conflict with legislation. However, there is nothing to stop an owners corporation from adopting by-laws, even if they cannot be enforced due to inconsistency with legislation. If an order was sought to enforce such a by-law it would decline to give such an order on the grounds that the by-law was inconsistent with legislation.
If somebody had put a motion to a general meeting that the animal ban by-law be rescinded and if that motion failed, the proponents could go to the Tribunal seeking an order to give effect to their motion on the grounds that it was unreasonable for the motion to have failed. It sounds like such an order would be likely to be granted by the Tribunal but that is not what they were asked.
My understanding of the current situation for strata insurance is that it’s take it or leave it, by the insurers.
Our committee just had our insurance broker seek quotes and all insurers declined except the insurer we were already with. The premium is a 25% increase on the previous year, which in turn was a substantial increase on the year before. For much of the last decade, the premiums were about half what they are now and the increase would have been even more if we had not accepted an increase in the excess from a few hundreds of dollars per claim to $2500 for most things and $5000 for some particular events.
Influencing this was some large claims over the past couple of years but the broker said these large increases are not just reflecting our situation or even strata insurance in general or Australian insurance in general but is part of an international trend. Frankly, I think we are starting to see climate change risks reflected in our premiums.
… Find a way of rewarding those who work hard for the community, and discouraging those who are more interested in the reward (cash as well as influence) and you’ve got it…
I think the sort of person who works hard for the community and does the right thing tends to feel rewarded when they feel appreciated and recognised. Hence my suggestion in response to the original question that someone be lined up to say some nice words at the AGM about how the particular committee member has put in an exceptional effort, over and above, much appreciated etc. and propose that the committee be authorised to purchase that person a gift such as a restaurant voucher or similar. Although the voucher has a cash value, it does not have quite the same mercenary feeling as just handing over a wad of cash.
If it were me, I think I would feel better about being offered a night out at a nice restaurant with my wife who has often taken up the slack at home on occasions when I got distracted by Owners Corporation matters. If I were just given a lump of money, even if twice as much as the restaurant voucher, I don’t think I would feel appreciated in quite the same way. A debate about just how much money might even negate what was intended as an appreciative gesture no matter what amount was offered in the end.
I think payment of committee members can get a bit fraught. I could promote bad behaviour as some residents stop treating them as selfless volunteers and start treating them in the same poor manner that they treat the employees of other businesses and/or start making snide suggestions that they are only doing it for the money.
I would recommend instead that someone else, probably another committee member, be lined up to give a nice speech at the AGM describing the exceptional additional work this particular member has done. That person might then propose a motion that the Owners Corporation records it appreciation and authorises the purchase of a gift of a case of the person’s favourite wine or a voucher for a local restaurant or similar.
Our strata management agreement with one of the larger companies has a table of fees they charge for various extra services, which includes representation at the Tribunal. The manager should have reminded the committee that this would be an additional service and the committee should have asked for an estimate of the cost. Either or both might have occurred. I don’t know why that can’t now be paid for out of the admin fund. With an AGM imminent, the cost can be explicit in the budget approved by the meeting. A special levy seems unnecessary since a levy will be raised anyway for all the usual expenses of the coming year.
Unless there is something I am unaware of in NSW legislation specifying a separate resolution for funding legal action, I can’t see why the up-coming AGM could not include a proposed Admin Fund budget for the coming year (as it always would) that includes a line for legal expenses with a sufficient amount to pay the managing agent for their services representing the OC at the Tribunal. If anyone objects, you can explain that the OC is obliged to pay since it has already received those services (and won). The lot owners who lost might vote against the motion but I assume they are a small minority so it would not matter.