Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am not sure I followed all the detail. However, I don’t quite understand how things are improved by giving away a shared common property resource (the 3 parking spaces) to just a few owners.
I can see where your manager is coming from in that you need to be able to show that you are being even-handed. Perhaps you do that by cracking down consistently and simultaneously on all instances of parking that is not in designated parking spaces.
If there is anyone parking on common property while not using their allocated garage space for parking, then crack down on that. At the Tribunal, your argument is that they are diminishing the use and enjoyment of the common property by using for routine parking because they are not using their own garage.
If some common property parking is not causing an obstruction to other but you want to go to the Tribunal over the instance that is causing an obstruction, then that is your point of difference. Make it not about parking on common property in general but about obstruction of others’ access to their allocated parking.
I am not a lawyer and I have not seen the by-law. However, my expectation is that the other clauses of the by-law would be enforceable if they are fairly conventional terms for approval of renovations that many owners corporations would have and they could operate independently of the possibly unenforceable term.
I think the simplest thing would be for the 15 owners to decide to continue with the current practice and turn a blind eye to the bylaw if all are of the opinion that nobody would benefit from enforcing it.
If the parking spaces on common property are not those designated as visitor parking (so can’t be reallocated to another purpose) and were built as parking spaces from the start, then clearly their purpose was for parking by residents. If they were unallocated, then it seems to me that your current practice is consistent with their common property purpose. It sounds like all lot owners get a chance to use them since people come and go; everyone has a chance they will find a vacant space on returning home. I would say you only have a by-law problem if one lot owner uses a space all the time (perhaps by leaving a car than never moves) preventing other owners from deriving ‘use and enjoyment’ from that common property.
Related to this, in the ACT, the local Tribunal can ‘give effect to a failed motion on the grounds that opposition to the motion was unreasonable’. The Tribunal has interpreted this to mean that it does a ‘merits review’ rather than try to get inside the heads of the people who voted down a motion.
We had an example of a motion put to a general meeting that required an unopposed resolution to pass. The motion failed because it had about 85% support and 15% opposed. We (the committee who proposed the motion) then went to the Tribunal seeking an order to give effect to the motion on the ground that it was unreasonable to oppose.
The motion we proposed was one that our legal advice said was necessary to avoid various serious consequences. It was the most equitable solution possible to our situation. It would not cause any detriment to any owner; instead it correctly conferred privileges that had been incorrectly conferred previously while ensuring that a small number of remaining owners would have equivalent privileges conferred. It was a remedy to something done incorrectly previously albeit in good faith and without objection at the time. A few owners just got the ‘wrong end of the stick’, seemed incapable of understanding clear legal advice that was circulated to all and they got a few extra proxies and voted the motion down.
Those who had opposed were invited to explain their opposition at the Tribunal. A few owners did and it was clear they hadn’t a clue. The Tribunal accepted that our legally-advised solution was the most equitable and reasonable possible and that those who opposed had presented no reasonable grounds to oppose that solution.
Essentially ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ mean pretty much what you would expect them to mean.
The committee should be setting the agenda or at least making sure that all the items required by statute are there as well as any other agenda items they want and motions notified.
On ‘Other Business’, I agree that no decisions (ie resolutions) could be made. In any state or territory, a general meeting can only make binding decisions by voting on motions listed on an agenda with the notice of the meeting which must be made a particular way and with minimum number of days of notice.
I don’t think there is any requirement to have ‘Other Business’ as an agenda item anywhere but I didn’t know NSW had a restriction on even general discussion without it being an explicit agenda item. I always though it good to include so owners could have general discussion. The contents of that general discussion can be minuted to record what was said but it only serves to record ‘the mood of the meeting’ which could help to give the incoming committee some guidance. It can’t include any binding decisions. A committee would probably notice if the meeting was poorly attended except by the mates of someone with an axe to grind and give any comments appropriate weight.
Where I am we have just by tradition in our particular owners corporation had an agenda item ‘Other Business’, under which there is discussion of 1) matters notified to the chair 7 days before the meeting and 2) any other matters if time permits.
If someone tried to put a motion for a resolution, rather than simply raise some matter for general discussion by owners, it would be ruled ‘out of order’ by the chair because there was insufficient notice. The strata Acts in various jurisdictions require notice of motions so that you can’t get controversial decisions passed by stacking a meeting with supporters then springing a last minute motion while not giving dissenters enough notice to get to the meeting, appoint a proxy or cast an absentee vote.
Accurate accounts must be presented to an AGM. If they are accurate, they will show the debt. If they are not presented clearly, then you could interpret for the benefit of others or ask the treasurer to explain.
Since you are a member of the committee, you share the responsibility to ensure that proper meeting notice is given and accurate accounts are presented.
As for specific works (eg. the fence repair), why can’t the committee include funding for these as part of the proposed budget for the coming year? The OC is obliged to maintain its common property so it should not really be up for debate about whether to do it.
Parking issues are a different matter. One approach (since I don’t know the detail) would be to give notice to the chair that you wish to discuss parking under the “Other Business” item. The chair should give priority to notified matters over not-notified matters. If you don’t have a specific motion about parking on the agenda as notified to owners, then the meeting can’t make a formal resolution. However, the minutes could record that parking was discussed and there was ‘some specified general consensus about how parking should operate’ or that ‘opinion was about evenly divided between certain options’ or that ‘the incoming committee was asked to prepare a recommendation taking into account the various views heard at the meeting’ or whatever.
If this is “strata” why are you paying the gas bill?
In strata situations there is sometimes a central gas-fired hot water system. The individual units have a water volume meter on their hot water supply and then pay a ‘gas bill’ that is worked out from the volume of delivered hot water as their pro-rata share of the gas bill for the central water heater.
That said, this does look more like the size of gas hot water storage heater the might be just for the one unit.
I am not a NSW person but I got the impression from other responses here that the strata plans in NSW show which walls are lot property and which are common property by thick and thin lines. Hence my impression is that it is not a committee decision but a matter that became fixed at the time the strata plan received development approval.
I agree with JT except that I wonder about the wisdom of locking the main tap. What if the building is flooding and the person with the key can’t be found?
If you talk to enough of your neighbours, perhaps you will be able to go to the strata committee and tell them that, as it happens, quite a few owners are open to the idea of spending a bit more and getting noise and thermal insulation as well. The committee might be just assuming that there would be no appetite for spending more than the minimum.
Perhaps the best way to resolve those issues is to research double glazed windows and then present a proposal to the committee. If road noise is a bother to you, it probably is to other residents too. If window replacement is already under consideration, why not offer to do the leg-work to find out what would be best, get quotes etc. The committee might be very grateful to have someone take a task off their hands. This way, you can make sure a good option gets proposed to the owners and that you have the committee’s backing.
Note that double glazing just for noise, only needs a narrow gap of a few mm between the sheets of glass and the framing does not need a thermal break. I would go the extra step of making sure the double glazing is worthwhile thermally as well. For good thermal insulation, you need frames that don’t ‘short circuit’ the panes by conducting heat through the frames. You also need a gap ideally of about 12-15mm, 8mm at a minimum.
Good thermal double glazing will help keep the heat out in summer as well as the heat in in winter.
Sometimes committee members can discuss things so much within the bubble that they lose track of how much is known outside. When I was on a committee, I came to the conclusion that people needed to be told 3 times before it sunk in to all. Now I am not on our committee, I am sometimes annoyed that the present committee is not as communicative as we (the earlier committees) tried to be.
If your concerns do genuinely represent concerns of many owners, not just your own, then it would be useful to have evidence of that. If you go via the NCAT route, then it won’t be just you but a sizeable number of owners seeking an order from the Tribunal.
I am in the ACT. My experience with a few ACAT matters, which may be similar to NCAT, is that the Tribunal will remind applicants that the Owners Corporation is a democracy. It might suggest that you put a motion to a general meeting to approve taking legal action to remedy various matters. If the motion passes, then the committee will be obliged to act. A resolution of a general meeting will demonstrate that your concerns are shared by a majority. IE. You might go with a group of owners to the Tribunal but even then might be sent back to get a vote. If you do it in the other order, you might not need to go to the Tribunal because the committee’s hand will be strengthened in each action endorsed by the general meeting resolution.
Sounds like the drainage pipes could be extended slightly and the whole issue would go away. Alternatively plumbed into a downpipe.
“…A reminder that all contact with Strata Management must go through the Chair. To do otherwise will incur a debt to the unit holder…”
I wonder if behind this, unstated, might be a history of one or several owners communicating so frequently with the SM that the manager has threatened to charge extra for the amount of time spent dealing with that owner. The SM would in any case prefer to have one known approved communication channel, generally the committee chair or secretary or treasurer from whom to receive clear consistent instructions that reflect committee decisions. From my time on a committee, I recall instances of individual owners being troublesome trying to give contractors instructions bypassing the committee or making unreasonable demands of the manager.
This might not be what is happening here but I thought it worth mentioning that there could be a backstory to this email that has nothing to do with the current matter.