Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The EC has to do its own communication. It can issue letters to all owners or a newsletter or whatever. If there is a managing agent, the EC’s communications can be sent through that official channel. The contents can contradict the unilateral communications where they were wrong, or even explicitly ‘correct an impression that an earlier letter represented the views of the EC as a whole’. The EC needs to agree on the text of each communication and have a quiet word to the managing agent about what it going on. The rest of the EC can just persistently outvote the one member of the EC. It is annoying when this happens but the majority have the power. Owners will quickly work out that the unilateral communications were not the endorsed position of the EC.
Shallow rooted plants might be a temporary fix to slow the rate at which things get worse but it seems to me the problem is fundamentally insufficient waterproofing of the garden beds.
What is the Community Hub? Is it like a website or online resource for the strata scheme?
Our managing agent operates a web site called ‘My Community’, which I presume is software licenced by managing agents. Owners can log in to see documents such as past newsletters, committee minutes etc. It has a chat forum thing called ‘Community Wall’ where people can ask questions or post comments and the committee or managing agent might post announcements. It is also where one can see one’s personal account for levy payments. It shows all owners a high level overall financial position for the Owners Corporation. Financial details such as each individual units’ credit or arrears or every payment for goods and services are only visible to logged-in committee members.
I have the same question as JT. Unless I have misunderstood the question, if it takes less than a minute for someone to reverse in, then exit forwards, how is that obstructing reasonable use of the common property? How often would two people be wanting to traverse the driveway at the exact same moment?
I agree that an active committee can save a lot of money by using local tradies rather than big maintenance companies with overheads. A better job can be achieved if the committee supervises the work and talks to the tradies directly about what is needed and listens to their advice. That requires someone with the time and inclination and enough nous to distinguish good advice from poor.
Where I am, our levies are low but we maintain things well. As treasurer, I am not afraid to put levies up when needed and we maintain a good contingency reserve so we can do anything necessary in a timely manner.
You should be able to see a breakdown of the Owners Corporation’s budget in the papers presented at each AGM. Does anything stand out? One common reason for high levies is earlier low levies. A possibility is that levies were kept too low for a period of time, resulting in insufficient reserves in the Sinking Fund and now a more responsible committee has adjusted the budget to build up funds for planned maintenance over the next decade.
There is generally quite a lot of protection for committee members acting in good faith. It is up to the owners generally through general meetings to satisfy themselves that the owners corporation has adequate maintenance plans. If the committee is incompetent, the only fix is for other owners to volunteer and do a better job.
A merits review means the Tribunal looks at all the circumstances around a decision and decides whether some other decision would have been preferable. It can then give an order substituting the preferable decision for the original one.
Usually, the Tribunal would not go directly to a hearing. Instead there would be a ‘preliminary conference’. The parties would front up and a Tribunal member would attempt to mediate a discussion about the issue. If the parties can be encouraged to reach some mutually agreed solution, then the Tribunal can give ‘consent orders’. So long as the solution would not actually be illegal, the Tribunal member won’t intervene in the mutually agreed solution, even if they think it was foolish for either or both parties to agree. The consent orders are then binding.
Another possibility is that a mediated conversation will lead the applicant to realise that their position is untenable and the orders may be to dismiss the matter.
Another possibility is that the parties might agree that the matter be put to a general meeting, since whatever a general meeting decides will over-ride the EC decision. Then the consent orders would be that the EC calls a meeting within some time frame and that the parties return to the Tribunal to report the outcome. If it goes against the applicant, the Tribunal might ask if they now accept the democratic decision of the OC. If they do, the matter will be dismissed. If they don’t, it might be set down for a hearing, this time with the applicant seeking an order to overturn the OC decision.
It might become clear at a preliminary conference that it would be beyond the powers of the EC to make the payment, even if they wanted to, because it is outside the realm of what would be defensible as consistent with an OC-approved budget. It might also become clear that the unit owner spent the money of their own volition at their own risk. The unit owner might argue that it was something the OC should have spent money on but I doubt that would count for much unless they could demonstrate that they had no choice but to spend the money (to avoid a greater cost or serious safety risk) because the EC was neglecting some responsibility even after the matter had been repeated brought to their attention.
It is hard to be more specific without knowing more of the specifics. As a general rule, an owner can’t just spend money and expect to be reimbursed without having that spending approved first.
The NSW wording is only slightly different from the ACT although NSW seems to compel the committee chair to chair the meeting. In the ACT, the executive committee chair is the chair of any general meeting by default. However, they can decline to do it on a particular occasion without needing to resign and could delegate that function to the strata manager. I expect NSW would be the same in practice.
My reading of the NSW legislation, as quoted by JT, would be that a member of the OC present at the meeting could then move a procedural motion that some other particular eligible member of the OC present at the meeting be appointed to chair the meeting. A vote would take place and if passed by a majority, the meeting would from that point on be chaired by that appointed person. I can imagine circumstances when a majority at a meeting might prefer that the meeting be chaired by someone other than the managing agent and the committee chair might decline to chair.
I would make an insurance claim and put all the info you have in. The insurer will quickly tell you if they regard these as insurable events. I doubt it will make a difference to your premium on renewing. Insurance is going up everywhere and these claims are small beer in the scheme of things.
I would make an insurance claim and put all the info you have in. The insurer will quickly tell you if they regard these as insurable events. I doubt it will make a difference to your premium on renewing. Insurance is going up everywhere and these claims are small beer in the scheme of things.
Any committee resolution to approve an application for keeping a pet or anything else should be recorded in the minutes of the committee meeting that made that decision. Otherwise, how would anyone be able to show that approval had been given?
I suggest you could try the approach you suggest. If you don’t get the required vote, then I think most strata legislation has something like the ACT provision I am familiar with, that is, that you can seek an order from the Tribunal (NCAT, ACAT etc) to ‘give effect to a failed motion on the grounds that objection to the motion is unreasonable.’ If your state legislation has such a provision, you could apply for what amounts to a merits review of the motion. If the Tribunal agrees that it was unreasonable for the motion to not have passed, then it can give an order to ‘give effect’ to the motion, that is, an order that you can proceed as if the motion had passed.
The Tribunal will want you to have tried at a general meeting first. If you try going to the Tribunal first, they will point out that the Act provides a process that is preferable and that it is inappropriate for them to get involved until you have tried putting the motion to a meeting.
…I recall the Tsr/Sec year ago poo-pooing my idea for a resident to spend the 45 mins or so sweeping because he did not want the OC to be liable in case of injury to the resident….Our strata insurance policy includes cover for volunteers working on things on common property. It might not be as much of a liability exposure as was feared.
Do you have your own carport/garage? If you do and a visitor parking, I am guessing, along the side of this driveway would not block access to your allocated parking space(s), then it would seem this is a wide driveway. If the strata plan shows this is common property then it seems that it might not be unreasonable for the Owners Corporation to decide to explicitly mark this as a place where a visitor may park. Perhaps it was not obvious to visitors that such places along the roadways within the complex were places that visitors could park in and this might have let to a perception that parking was insufficient.