Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In the absence of a registered planting policy adopted by a general meeting that directs the committee, I’d generally say ‘No, the committee can’t tell you what to have in your garden.’
A possibility is that it might be a ‘regulated tree’ (the ACT jargon) if it is larger than certain dimensions. Other states or councils might use other terms. If it is a regulated or significant tree it might be beyond the authority of the committee to permit its removal.
I think in every state, the AGM must approve an annual budget. The committee should spend consistently with the approved budget. Occasionally some exceptional circumstance might require the committee to act immediately to remedy something unsafe or to avoid a larger expense if things are not repaired immediately, even if it was not anticipated in the budget. However, they should inform owners and justify their departure from the approved budget.
I don’t have a solution for you, only a few observations.
The ORS is now called ‘Access Canberra’. I think you can contact them for general advice on what is legal and what is not or what approvals would be necessary. Worth a try.
I can’t find anything in the Unit Titles (Management) Act that says a unit owner must apply to or notify the Owners Corporation about conducting business within their unit. I suspect you would have to demonstrate nuisance or interference with the use and enjoyment of the common property, which would then be a rule infringement.
Where are you? In the ACT, a resident must apply to keep an animal but the owners corporation cannot unreasonably withhold permission. Any rule (aka bylaw or article) must be consistent with that provision of the Act.
@Flame Tree said:
…If the Committee won’t drop a casual note … you can do yourself via a (anonymous?) general letter …Why is it the committee’s problem? If only one person is bothered, they might conclude that it is not a matter of reasonable general concern.
Anonymous notes on any topic are unpleasant and can be corrosive of a sense of community. If something is bothering you personally, have the courage of your convictions to put your name to it. Better still, make less of a big deal of it by talking to the people concerned directly next time you see them face to face. You might be pleasantly surprised by their reaction or they might tell you to piss off but you can modulate your response appropriately in real time.
BTW. Lady Humphrey’s immediate reaction to the original post was “This is sexist and it’s about control.”
Where I live, most people have a clothesline in their courtyard or hang washing on their balcony. The sky has not fallen, realestate prices have not crashed, the integrity of our notable architecture remains largely intact, nobody has swooned at the sight of a neighbour’s underwear. To my knowledge only one unit owner out of a hundred has complained in any way about their neighbour’s washing. There is always one!
There was a lovely old lady a couple of doors up from us who I would see sitting up in bed in her pyjamas when I walked past her unit in the morning to collect the newspaper, about 6m from her bedroom window. It didn’t bother me but I would politely avoid looking in because I did not want to embarrass her. One day she told me to stop doing that because she would much prefer acknowledgement and a friendly wave from a neighbour.
They have put on a bathrobe or T-shirt when they might be observed, presumably at some distance, through an uncovered window. From your description, the behaviour seems neither unusual nor unreasonable to me. I wouldn’t worry about it.
@N860CR said:
…the previous committee … changing by-laws to suit their lots…
How could the committee change by-laws? That requires a resolution of a general meeting.
Aside from any useful advice others might give, I suggest canvassing as many of your neighbours as you can to get a feel for how many share your concerns. It might be that the simplest solution is to make it clear to the committee that they should reverse the decision because it has little support and considerable opposition.
@Boronia said:
My understanding is that in NSW, at least, usually any outstanding or pre-paid service fees are pro-rataed between the buyer and seller at the time of settlement. Any outstanding levies would be deducted from the sale price, and paid to the SC (or other service provider) or the buyer; levies pre-paid beyond the settlement date would be credited to the buyer.Yes. That is how it should be done. However, the obligations associated with the unit are inherited by the new owner and it is up to the new owner to try to recover costs from the old owner if something went wrong.
When we bought our unit, something did go wrong. The previous owner owed several thousand dollars in both unpaid levies and ACT govt. rates. The correct amounts had been deducted by our conveyancing lawyer from the sale price. The balance had been paid to the previous owner. Title had been transferred to us. The deducted amounts were sitting in the lawyer’s trust account and cheques to pay those amounts to the ACT govt. and our OC were made out and attached to the file with a paperclip. Then, just before the cheques would have been mailed, the ACT law society froze the lawyers trust account while it resolved some alleged poor practice by our lawyer. It had nothing to do with our mundane matter and I don’t know what the outcome for our lawyer was.
What it did mean was that we were responsible for several thousand dollars of debt associated with the unit and facing demands for payments. We were unequivocally responsible to pay and all we could do was plead for leniency and patience since we could not raise that sort of money at the time. After some months, the ACT law society had done what ever it had to do and the money was released and the payments were made. We had been worried for a while there!
In the ACT, s.100 of our act says:
“1) An owners corporation for a units plan must insure and keep insured all buildings on the land for their replacement value from time to time against all of the following risks: …
2) The owners corporation must take out an insurance policy that covers, to the greatest practicable extent…”
The first bit has a long and comprehensive list of risks and it is clearly the ‘replacement value’ that must be insured. The next bit recognises that it is not possible to find an insurance product that is utterly comprehensive if for no other reason than that they all have some excess to be paid on a claim. The consequence is that Tribunal decisions have made it clear that the OC has to pay the excess on a claim since insurance products without an excess do not exist.
@dustyrusty said:
How do you think these questions might be considered for committee member who practices property law in their day job?Your question still seems a bit abstract. Without a concrete example, it is hard to know how your day job might be relevant.
It is conceivable that the interests of the OC could be different from the desire of a majority. There are conceivable circumstances when it would be more appropriate to spend rather than save OC funds. Indeed not spending might be irresponsible in some circumstances – eg. if preventative maintenance done now would save the OC money in the longer term.
What sorts of decisions are the committee making that you disapprove of? I am more familiar with the ACT act than those of other states but I expect they have provisions similar to the ACT. Here certain sorts of decisions can only be made by a general meeting. So, for example, if the act says a decision requires an ordinary resolution of the owners corporation, it is not within the power of the committee to decide. Some matters are covered by rules (aka bylaws or articles), rather than the body of the Act. In those cases, the OC might have resolved to amend those rules in a way that delegates a decision making power to the committee. However, the scope for doing that is limited. Some things cannot be delegated to the committee, even in if the OC wants to because the act says the OC must decide by a particular class of resolution, and that means a general meeting.