Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
BTW. Next time you need plumbing work done, it could be worthwhile putting in an inspection opening at the boundary, which is known as the ‘tie point’. Sometimes the pipes have provision for one but without a capped riser to the surface. If there is a blockage, you can shine a light down the riser and immediately see if the problem is within your property, in which case you call a plumber, or outside your property, in which case you call the utility provider to get them to fix the problem. Like you, they will be able to see unequivocally whether the problem is yours or theirs.
You tell the difference by whether you can see water in the riser. If there is water, the blockage must be below the tie point and in the utility provider’s area of responsibility. If there is no water in the riser, the blockage must be above the tie point and in your area of responsibility.
I agree with JT.
If you really want to go down this route, I would go with option 1 since the OC is low on funds.
I have done option 2 but only in an OC that had plenty of funds and it was purely about getting a contractor or goods on-site as quickly and simply as possible and I could be confident of getting the money reimbursed promptly, backed up by a paper trail showing the expense was approved.
With option 1, the owner(s) could pay money against their levy accounts. They would then be in advance of their levy payments. The OC should issue them with an account statement showing the payment received and that their account is in credit. The OC would have cash and could spend it on tree surgery or anything else the committee approves consistent with the budget or urgently necessary work.
When the next levy is due, those whose account balances are in credit would either not need to pay anything or would not need to pay as much, thereby, in effect, getting their money back.
JT’s please explain on the agenda will either result in an adequate explanation or provide clearer grounds for a Fair Trading application. I would go with that suggestion first.
Further to JT’s ‘please explain’ suggestion, give plenty of notice so there can be no excuse. CC the rest of the committee so they know that plenty of notice was given.
Perhaps, for a short time, the EC could meet informally in private to discuss matters on the agenda of each up-coming meeting. That way, EC members could have the civilised, unrushed, uninterrupted exchange and testing of ideas that is necessary for good decision making. Then, as is proper, the actual decisions could be made and minuted at the notified meeting in quite rapid succession without the risk that some useful contribution from an EC member would go unheard by the other EC members.
There might be some spluttering indignation from your disruptive owner as you race through the agenda at the formal meeting but at least you would get the business of the EC done. It might take a while for the disruptive owner to cotton on and even then, what could they do? There is no reason why EC members can’t talk informally among themselves when not having an EC meeting. Then, at the actual meeting, they can find themselves surprisingly quickly in unanimity with the first thing said on a matter, quickly resolve to make that a decision and move to the next agenda item.
I don’t think it was at all clear that two payments of $10K were made. Hence both my comments and JT’s, not just SC’s.
Does your OC have its books audited? Ours does and the audit report is included with the papers for each AGM.
The owners corporation’s plumbers should only have done work up to your boundary. If work was needed on the pipes that are beyond your boundary, then the plumber should have stopped or been directed to stop so that the utility provider (in this case Sydney Water) could determine for themselves that the fault lay in the area that was their responsibility. You can easily imagine how a utility could find themselves regularly paying for work that was not really their responsibility if they believed every plumber or proprietor who said the fault lay in their area.
So, if the OC has paid the plumber for work that may or may not have been your responsibility and it is now too late to prove there was a problem in the utility’s area of responsibility, I suspect you are stuck with paying now.
I agree agree with LP in the case of low funds. What if the OC does not approve the funding later and you are out of pocket?
The OC really should bite the bullet and have an adequate sinking fund plan, including a levy each year to fund the plan, and the plan should have a substantial contingency component. Plan for both the known expenses and the likelihood of some unknown expenses. Build up a comfortable buffer and it will be no big deal if some expense is required earlier than anticipated in the plan or something else turns out to be more expensive than anticipated.
Unless your tree presents an immediate, urgent, serious threat that demands immediate action, I would suggest that you just call the meeting with proper notice and get the levy approved and get on with the tree after perhaps only a month or so of delay. Putting hazard cones around or roping off the area would underline the importance of getting the approval.
I have been involved in such activities but only when it was very clear who had agreed to what and with a paper trail to minimise the risk of misunderstandings.
In our case, it was not because of limited funds. It was because it was sometimes quicker and easier in the midst of an approved project, with multiple steps, materials that will only be delivered after being paid for and with services to book which need the materials to be on site, to just pay some of the invoices personally so the next step can proceed without delay.
Sometimes it is easier and less stressful to just get on with things by paying personally up-front and sorting out reimbursements later.
If this were where I live, it might have been an illegal ‘tree damaging activity’ of a ‘regulated tree’, even if it were entirely on the person’s private property. I suggest it should be firmly stated by other committee members that this person’s neighbours take a dim view of unilateral action such as severe pruning, without first getting it cleared by the OC or the rest of the committee. Talking can be done firmly while remaining civil.
Where I live, a sub-set of people get very annoyed by birds and possums dropping and urinating on their cars in our open carports. Those who are precious about their cars just have to deal with their concern by getting out a bucket of water and a cloth more often. There is nothing much that can be done about it. It is just how it is. It is not much of a concern for the rest of us.
I find Jimmy’s scenario plausible.
While the grass is not part of your common property, it is not unusual for the proprietor of premises to be responsible for mowing or otherwise maintaining the adjacent nature strip.
It sounds like one unit owner overpaid and was repaid. If the situation now is that the OC has no more or less money than it should have, including all owners having paid correct levies, I would not worry about trying to make sense of it. Move on with the new managing agent but keep an eye on things.
Just to qualify what I wrote above, I think it would be reasonable to pay for actual demonstrated costs such as fuel for the mower on production of the receipt but no more. The labour component can be rewarded with thanks and public acknowledgement. Often the owner of premises has responsibility for the nature strip, so it could be a legitimate expense for the OC. Similarly, someone who replaces blown light bulbs on the common property should be reimbursed for the cost of the light bulbs on production of a receipt. Paying more than that is just likely to cause resentment among others who also contribute time but don’t get paid anything.
Are there others who put in more time for the good of the community such as serving on the committee or doing minor items of repair and maintenance such as checking the lights and replacing bulbs, thereby saving the OC money by not using an electrician?
I would suggest that everyone who does something like this should get praise, thanks and public acknowledgement of their contribution to the community. I tend to think that bringing money into it can do more harm than good, especially if some get overlooked when distributing the largesse.