Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I meant a property manager. It might still be worth asking. If they give you an answer you like…
Do you have a managing agent? They might be able to advise.
I wonder what illegal activity is going on in that unit?
Are you sure you can only enter the unit in a life-threatening emergency? In the ACT, where I am, an executive committee representative (in this case it could be a plumber) can enter a unit if the committee has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is a breach of the Act or these rules in relation to a unit— inspect the unit to investigate the breach (could be a breach of the rules or Act if the leak is caused by a failure to maintain the unit), or carry out any maintenance required under the Act (in this case, to determine whether a leak is caused by a common property pipe – the OC is required to repair and maintain the common property). The committee must give reasonable notice of its intention to enter the unit. It may also enter without notice in an emergency. It does not say it has to be a life-threatening emergency. In any case, you would be giving reasonable notice and seeing as there is on-going significant damage I think you could go ahead (in the ACT at least) after giving one last definite notice of a time. If the unit owner were to get upset, you would have ample evidence of your attempts to gain reasonable cooperation.
If this were in the ACT, the situation would be very clear. The strata legislation here requires the OC to ‘fully insure’ the property. The requirement is without qualification about excesses etc. To the extent that it is not possible in practice to be fully insured because all insurance policies have an excess, the OC has to cover the shortfall of a valid claim. If the claim would have been valid except that the amount is less than the excess, then the OC has to cover the cost.
In other states, the legislation might be worded differently and it might be possible for the OC to avoid paying out for claims below the excess.
I am not in NSW but the legislation where I am explicitly says a function of the committee is to supervise the treasurer. So, I expect the members of the SC can and should be monitoring the finances at least to the extent that they can satisfy themselves that the treasurer is doing things properly. I would expect that in practice some very trivial things could be left to the treasurer (eg. reimbursing someone for buying some light bulbs to fix a few common property lights) but other things should be committee decisions (eg. deciding to engage an electrician for more major work on the lights).
Also, the committee should be elected at each AGM. If the SC has not met for 18 months, am I right to suspect that perhaps you are not having AGMs either? If that is the case, then the OC is failing to comply with the legislation. Among other problems, there would be no approved annual budget to levy for and spend from.
While I am sure there are committees that fail to keep residents and owners informed there are also instances of individual owners who seem perversely determined to misinterpret the clearest communications, get the ‘wrong end of the stick’ and then get ‘on their high horse’ about it rather than politely seeking further explanation.
Since you have a year to run, another option is to put a motion on the agenda requiring the committee to research alternative managing agents and seek a management proposal and quote from the existing managing agent and two others before bringing a recommendation to the next AGM. In your supporting statement you could state your particular concern for finding a manager that would address the following: quality of maintenance and cleaning, documentation of approvals and giving residents notice of works, not necessarily just the lowest price.
If you are locked into a multi-year contract, you could try one of several options at the AGM.
1) a mild option would be to have a Discussion item on the agenda ‘to discuss concerns to do with the quality of maintenance and cleaning, documentation of approvals and giving residents notice of works.’ That would give all a chance to air grievances and amounts to giving the committee and the manager notice that they need to do better.
2) a heavier duty option would be a motion for a resolution at the AGM requiring the committee to provide a written report to the next AGM documenting improvements to the quality of maintenance and cleaning, documentation of approvals and giving residents notice of works.
3) I notice you say you have had this strata manager for three years. In the ACT, perhaps similar elsewhere, 3 years is the maximum for a service contract. So, here, the manager’s contract would be up for renewal and there would have to be a AGM agenda item with a motion to renew the contract for a further three years. You could put an alternative motion, to go ahead of this one in the agenda, to only renew the contract for one year. If that motion passes, the next motion for three year renewal would lapse. You would explain the purpose of your motion is to provide an opportunity for the incoming committee to review the performance of the managing agent and then recommend either renewal or replacement at the next AGM.
Here’s an idea: You might have people who won’t approve if they feel they are being asked to vote on something a bit vague, without all the specific details you would have once there are architect’s drawings or engineer’s reports. Perhaps it would be a better strategy to ask to have the matter on the agenda just for discussion, not for a formal resolution of in principle support. If it seems on the night that there is broad support, you could ask for a ‘show of hands’ ‘just to get a feel for whether the proposition is likely to be supported, subject to returning to a later meeting with all the relevant documentation for formal approval’ etc. IE look humble and reassuring. Let people have some time to get used to the idea. Make them feel consulted. Talk to as many of your neighbours as possible well before the meeting because many won’t read meeting papers until the last minute. If lots of people go in feeling already reassured about the idea, it is less likely the meeting will veer off course with one or two loud outraged people and everyone else, who might have supported, sitting back silent, confused and slightly gob-smacked.
‘Strata’ can be an ambiguous term to use because it is not clear whether you mean the managing agent or the OC. The mediation would be between you and the Owners Corporation (OC), which may be represented by the strata committee unless they have engaged the managing agent to represent them.
It seems that you would have a claim against the OC and then it would be up to the committee to work out whether they can claim for reimbursement from the contractor, or the contractor’s insurance or the OC’s insurance. It is not your problem if the committee can’t recoup its costs from one of those sources and has to fund it from its cash reserves.
Since all owners are members of the OC, I can see some justification for informing the members of the OC that they are involved in a dispute requiring mediation.
The loan repayments, as LP has pointed out, are an Owners Corporation (OC) expense, not an individual one. The OC is the legal person to whom the loan was made. Levies for the OC budget are to cover all the OC’s expenses, including loan repayments.
Where I am (ACT), it takes an unopposed resolution of a general meeting for the OC to resolve to levy fund contributions worked out by some means other than in proportion to unit entitlements. So, if NSW has a similar provision, it might be possible to work something out but you would need to have everyone on board and it would require extra accounting work to ensure it all remains fair without detriment to anyone, both to those who paid out their share early and to those who didn’t who need to cover the correct remaining interest.
It might be possible if it is clearly shown to be a win-win with early and late payers both benefiting from contributing less to interest payments than they might otherwise have done. I would advise you to be very careful how it is presented. Otherwise you could have one or more owners getting ‘the wrong end of the stick’ and convinced that this is a swindle of some sort. People get funny about money.
Cautionary tale: I recall an instance of someone (who was an economist) making a fundamental error about a matter involving money. This person wrote to owners to show them that a proposal from a committee was much more expensive than it actually was. I thought the error in the maths as presented was so obvious that this person had shot themselves in the foot. Sadly, many just believed the conclusion without looking at the numbers. The committee responded explaining the error but I learned that it is hard to get people to read words and numbers are even harder. If the numbers refer to money, some people get suspicious.