Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I agree that it would normally be the contractor’s insurance. A very good reason to make sure all contractors engaged by an OC have current insurance (and appropriate trade licenses etc).
If a tenant attends an AGM can they participate in discussions or only participate if they are invited.
Who’s going to stop them?
A formal option: Since a general meeting is a meeting of owners, I would think the chair could rule on whether someone has standing at the meeting. In the ACT at least, an owner can appoint anyone (except the strata manager) to be their proxy, so, here at least, I would advise a tenant who wishes to take part in an AGM, including voting, to suggest to the owner of the unit that they be appointed as the owner’s proxy.
An informal option: That said, a reasonable chair would, I think, allow anyone to speak if they are contributing something worthwhile to the discussion of the agenda item at hand. You could speak to the chair ahead of the meeting to alert them to your desire to speak on some topic during the meeting.
I may have missed something at the time of the change over. Am I right in thinking that posts now appear immediately to everyone but can be pulled down if deemed inappropriate by a moderator? Previously a post would only be visible to non-moderators after being approved.
It is possible that the committee are just making the by-law changes in one lump because this is how a strata manager is telling them to do it. Where I live, we changed our ‘rules’ (ACT-speak for ‘by-laws’) gradually. We amended some, we left some unchanged, we deleted some, we added some. We made these changes over several years giving owners time to consider them all. We also had rules we wanted to leave alone at each step because we did not want to have debate about them while trying to make unrelated changes. Registering incremental changes and insisting to our manager that this is how we wanted to do it was not straight-forward. Most, it seems, do just have a single resolution to rescind an old set and adopt a new set. The ‘new set’ can of course include some rules which were identical or similar in the old set. Certainly this is easier if there is little controversy about any of them. There is then one uncomplicated resolution to register the new set in place of the old set.
As for what you can have in your by-laws about keeping animals, I am not up to date on NSW. Perhaps your old by-law is redundant whether you like it or not due to being no longer consistent with the Act? In the ACT an old rule banning pets would be null and void and of no effect. Here the balance is that our Act says a unit owner must apply for permission to the owners corporation to keep an animal but permission must not be unreasonably refused. Perhaps your Act has a similar provision. If so, have no idea if old pet-banning rules were grandfathered.
Our new pet rule gives automatic permission for certain common pet choices subject to some reasonable conditions while setting out that unusual animal choices still need to be applied for and may or may not be approved by the committee. For extreme examples. If you want a goldfish in a bowl, permission is automatically granted by the adoption of the rule; if you want to keep an elephant, you must apply to the committee, which will exercise the function of the OC, and which will probably find reasonable grounds to refuse.
I would write a polite letter to “The owner of lot X” explaining the situation and request that your executive committee arrange for it to be forwarded to the owner of the unit that is using the storage locker that you now understand to be yours. You would ask them to remove their stuff with a reasonable time-frame so that you can use your locker yourself.
If the committee does not co-operate by forwarding your letter, then you can 1) make a fuss about inconsistent treatment etc., and 2) go to the managing agent and ask them to forward the letter yourself, and 3) if that doesn’t work, demand to inspect the unit roll and get the contact details yourself. If the managing agent refuses on (spurious) privacy grounds, point out that you tried to avoid that by asking to have your letter forwarded.
If none of that works, your situation is that somebody has left their property on your property. In the ACT this is covered by the ‘Uncollected Goods Act’. Other jurisdictions would have something similar. As I understand it, you can’t just toss out their stuff. There are provisions about how much effort you have to go to to try to find the owner before you can dispose of the stuff. The level of required effort varies according to the value of the goods. If the goods are high value and you dispose of them by sale, you have to keep the proceeds for a certain amount of time but you can deduct reasonable costs. You could enlist the help of the managing agent for this. They should be accustomed to dealing with this sort of problem. People leave stuff all the time eg. tenants moving out etc. If you act on their advice you would have a reasonable defence against someone accusing you of getting it wrong.
@curramore said:
This was our strata managements replyUnfortunately, this is not a breach of a strata by-law and is out of our jurisdiction…
With a bit of imagination (well, not much really), I am sure it would be in breach of a by-law. In the ACT, where I am, default rule 5 states:
“Use of common property – A unit owner must not use the common property, or permit it to be used, to interfere unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of the common property by an owner, occupier or user of another unit.”I am sure all other jurisdictions would have something similarly generic to cover anything unreasonable but unanticipated on common property. Unexpected vehicle movements on common property by a 14 year interferes unreasonably with any residents reasonable expectations about safe use of common property. The 14 year old parent is permitting this and would be in breach in the ACT.
Fortunately where I am in the ACT, we are not required to display EC minutes so publicly. In practice ours can be found by anyone interested but they are not in everyone’s face. Even so, committees I have been on have tried to walk a fine line between accurately recording the deliberations of the committee while avoiding gratuitous exposure of often petty grievances between neighbours.
We avoided using names. In order to be accurate we would have to write things like ‘The owner of unit 25 has complained that the new tenant at unit 24 is doing …’ In our case the unit number is the door number so we can’t disguise it further. I gather that in NSW, perhaps apartments generally, lot numbers and door numbers don’t necessarily coincide so a reference to ‘lot 123’ might not identify a door number in an obvious way, let alone a name. However, if the matter became a legal matter, it might be helpful to have unambiguous minutes that identify times, places, people, dates etc.
Agree with Scotlandx. Also: I don’t see any problem with both the owner and the EC member son/daughter of owner attending a general meeting. The EC member offspring might speak on matters as an EC member. When it comes to voting, the owner if present can vote for the unit. The off-spring is not an owner so can’t vote unless appointed as the proxy for the owner. Whoever does the voting on behalf of the unit, there is only one vote per unit (unless it is a poll vote, in which case there is still only one vote but weighted according to unit entitlements).
The EC contacting work safe would demonstrate an attempt to ensure safety. I think it should be proactive by also directly contacting the builders telling them to secure the balconies and also by putting notices on the doors of every unit with a balcony.
It could also be useful to rope off the area below the balconies if the builders have not done so (as they should have). The danger is not just to a person falling but also to anyone underneath any kind of falling object.
I am not a lawyer but I think the OC could be liable, especially if the person who fell was a child or some other person for whom it could not be argued that they fully understood the risk. Even if the OC were not liable, it is clearly highly irresponsible.
If the OC has engaged a builder to do the work to complete the balcony, and the builder is leaving the balcony essentially unprotected, then the OC should make an urgent enquiry to make sure the builder’s liability insurance is up to date and to insist that the doors be secured. Do it in writing so the OC has some evidence that it tried to do the right thing.
I am not aware of legislation to quote but it is so obviously not your fault or responsibility that I would just stick with saying that unless someone else here comes up with something better. So long as you keep diligently up to date with rent and anything else you are responsible for, I would just stick with not paying for a tree.
If someone, not you, stole the letterbox and you promptly reported it, you would not have to buy a new letterbox. On the other hand you could reasonably ask the owner (or their agent) to replace the letterbox so you could receive letters.
Yes, you are expected to keep the garden in reasonable condition, but no, you should not be expected to replace a stolen tree.
If the agent gets heavy about this, you say that two highly esteemed 😉 ‘strata gurus’ on Flat-Chat have advised that you don’t need to replace a stolen tree.
Relax and enjoy Christmas.
The original questioner was from the ACT. It is not clear if they are concerned about eligibility to vote at general meetings. The ACT Act simply says:
Schedule 3, part 3.3(3) “If the owners corporation has 3 or more members, a person is only entitled to vote for a unit on a motion requiring an ordinary or special resolution if all amounts payable to the owners corporation for the unit have been paid.”I can’t see anything that limits the ‘amounts payable’ to those that were payable by the date of the meeting notice or that the amounts must be paid by the start of a meeting, whether the notified date or some later date due to adjournment. I would say ‘If you have paid everything that is due for payment by the time the vote is taking place, you can vote.’
@newlsie said:
…
* I have NCAT orders brought down in January 2017 to fix the leaks immediately. The SC have not complied.* Fair Trading won’t touch it because I have NCAT orders.
* NCAT say they cannot force the work to be done. I can spend $5k with my lawyer and the OC will get fined however the Government keeps the money. That does not get my leaks fixed because the SC don’t care.
* Where to from here. …
You seem pessimistic about enforcement orders. In my experience, which was only once, and I am not a lawyer, it was not difficult. Sure, there is some extra bother. I think you just need to find out which is the right area of the court system to go to for enforcement orders. I am only familiar with the ACT where the Magistrates Court makes enforcement orders for any earlier orders of either the Tribunal or the Magistrates Court that have not been complied with.
If you just want the leaks fixed, you don’t have to ask for the fine to be applied; just ask for a court order that the Tribunal order be complied with by some new date. The SC would be extremely foolish to continue to fail to comply. You ask the Magistrate what would happen if the SC continue to fail to comply with the Tribunal order and the Court’s order. The Magistrate will most likely explain it very clearly and sternly to the SC’s representative(s). You can also apply for an order that someone else be authorised to make the repair if the OC does not do it. That makes sure someone else is covered legally if they do the work if the OC still fails to do it. You can also have an order that slates all the extra costs back to the OC. This should concentrate the minds of the SC.
In the ACT, and most likely in NSW, there will be Court ‘Procedure Rules’ which describe what sorts of orders can be made by the Court. In our matter, the ACT Tribunal wrote: “If the respondent fails to comply with the ACAT order then the applicant can take enforcement action in the ACT Magistrates Court pursuant to Part 2.18 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006, and in particular rule 2442. In the Tribunal’s view the Magistrates Court would be able to make the kind of orders being sought by the applicant in relation to compliance with the ACAT order.”
From the ACT Court Rules quoted below a key bit is that “if the original order is an order to do an act, the court may appoint someone else to do the act; and order the person liable under the original order to pay the costs and expenses caused by the failure to do the act.” So, the orders you seek could be that 1) the OC makes the repairs as originally ordered by the Tribunal by some date considered reasonable by the Court and 2) that a strata manager be appointed and authorised to carry out the repairs if the OC has not complied by the date in order 1, and/or 3) any other order that the Court considers reasonable or necessary to have the leaks described in the original Tribunal order fixed.
Relevant sections from the ACT Court Procedure Rules follow. I suggest you look for the NSW equivalent:
2001 Enforcement orders generally
(1) To enforce an order (the original order) (but not an order for the payment of money into court), a person entitled to enforce the original order may obtain an enforcement order from the court.
Note Orderis defined in the dictionary to include judgment (see also def made).
(2) An enforcement order may contain any order directed to enforcing the original order.
(3) Without limiting subrule (2), an enforcement order includes the following orders:
(a) a seizure and sale order (see division 2.18.5);
(b) a debt redirection order (see division 2.18.6);
(c) a regular redirection order (see division 2.18.7);
(d) an earnings redirection order (see division 2.18.8);
(e) a charging order (see division 2.18.9);
(f) an order under division 2.18.10 relating to amounts or securities in court;
(g) an order under division 2.18.11 appointing a receiver;
(h) an order for delivery of possession of land (see division 2.18.13);
(i) an order for seizure and delivery of goods (see division 2.18.14);
(j) an order for seizure and detention of property (see division 2.18.15);
(k) an order issuing an arrest warrant or an arrest and detention warrant under division 2.18.16 (Contempt).
(4) An enforcement order may contain 2 or more orders directed to enforcing the original order and may be made to enforce an original order that is a money order and a non-money order.
(5) Without limiting rule 6901 (Orders may be made on conditions), an enforcement order may be made on conditions about the payment of, or giving security for, the estimated expenses of an enforcement officer in enforcing the order.
2442 Enforcement—orders to do or not do an act
(1) This rule applies to an order (the original order) if—
(a) the order is a non-money order that requires a person—
(i) to do an act within a stated time; or
(ii) not to do an act; and
(b) the person contravenes the order.
(2) The original order may be enforced in 1 or more of the following ways:
(a) punishment for contempt of the person liable under the original order;
Note For provisions about contempt, see div 2.18.16.
(b) an order for seizure and detention of property against the person liable under the original order;
Note For provisions about orders for seizure and detention of property, see div 2.18.15.
(c) if the person liable under the original order is a corporation—without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b), the following:
(i) punishment for contempt of any senior officer of the corporation;
(ii) an order for seizure and detention of property against the corporation.
(3) Subrule (2) is subject to rule 2446 (Enforcement by contempt or seizing and detaining property—preconditions).
(4) Also, if the original order is an order to do an act, the court may—
(a) appoint someone else to do the act; and
(b) order the person liable under the original order to pay the costs and expenses caused by the failure to do the act.
(5) Subrule (4) does not affect the court’s power to—
(a) appoint a person to execute a document by order of the court; or
(b) punish for contempt
@newlsie said:
No, all NCAT can do is issue paper. That’s it!…Nonetheless, that paper will contain very specific orders. Only a very foolish person would fail to comply with the orders of a Tribunal. It is a bit of bother getting a compliance order from the Court but the Court takes a very dim view of people who don’t comply with orders.
@twosailram said:
…The interesting question is, If someone is unfinancial when the meeting starts, and the meeting is adjourned for whatever reason, AND the unfinancial owner becomes financial before the adjourned meeting, can they vote at the adjourned meeting?The short answer is that I don’t know. That might be the sort of thing covered by a precedent court decision if it is not completely clear from the Act.
My longer answer would be to say that if I were the chair of the meeting and the meeting were adjourned and a member of the OC had become financial before the adjourned meeting commenced, then I would accept their vote. I would argue that this is consistent with the spirit of the Act (all financial members should have the opportunity to take part in democratic decision making) even if a pedantic argument might be made along the lines of the adjourned meeting being a continuation of the meeting that started when the member was unfinancial.