Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Years ago when certain members of our owners corporation (OC) were making life difficult for its committee members, I asked our managing agent what would happen if nobody was prepared to accept nomination to be on the committee and so the AGM failed to elect a committee. She said that she would still have a management contract so she would continue to act as our agent. However, every time there was a decision that required instruction from the OC, there would not be a committee that could give her instructions on behalf of the OC so she would have to call a general meeting to give her instructions. She expected that it would not take long for enough OC members to get sick of having general meetings for every little thing that they would get their act together and elect a committee.
…seems a lottle strange (but true) that the bar is lower in an EC meeting than in a General Meeting …
I guess the difference is that an EC member has been elected by the AGM so they have a role to play, financial or not, over and above voting in their own interest at a general meeting.
I am only aware of the voting restriction that you quote – ordinary and special resolutions at general meetings. I think an EC member can vote at an EC meeting, financial or not.
The Tribunal can rule a meeting or resolution of a meeting “void for irregularity” (UTMA s.129). Why was the meeting regarded as irregular by the subsequent AGM? On what grounds does the AGM believe the meeting was irregular? Were the irregularities important to the outcome of the meeting or would the same result have occurred without the irregularity? Does a majority of the AGM believe the decision to levy three owners was the wrong decision? If so, why not have a regular meeting that resolves to reverse the previous decision to put the matter beyond doubt? If a majority think the three owners should have been levied the $2.5K, regardless of whatever the problems were with the meeting regularity, then why not let the decision stand and move on?
My guess, and that is all it is, would be that a unanimous resolution of a well publicised general meeting for which much more than the minimum notice and reminders and full and clear background information had been given would be sufficient to put it beyond challenge.
Perhaps you could get away with a special resolution but I would not be confident that that would survive a challenge and not being unanimous would demonstrate that there was opposition.
Three units. One is yours. One you think is owned by the mother of the person claiming to be the strata manager. Then there is a third unit. Who owns the 3rd unit? Do you know them? If so, you and that owner would out-vote the other unit owner. Have you been having proper AGMs? Is there a strata committee? Are there minutes?
I think the Unit Titles (Management) Act only requires the text of a motion to be included with the notice of a meeting if it is a resolution requiring an unopposed or unanimous resolution (Schedule 3.7 (1)(d)). However, I think it is very poor practice not to include the text of every motion.
It seems odd that 3 owners out of 10 would be billed for the cost of a meeting when the UTMA has a provision that 25% of owners can petition the EC to call a general meeting. I would not think that you could be billed for doing something that the Act permits you (30%) to do: “… if the executive committee of an owners corporation receives a written request (a meeting request), stating the matters to be considered at the meeting, from people who are entitled to vote on all motions for units whose combined unit entitlement is at least 1/4 of the total unit entitlement in the units plan. … The executive committee must hold a general meeting, by notice under section 3.6, within 28 days after the day it receives the meeting request.” (UTMA Schedule 3.5)
As for a motion to rescind a previous motion, that seems relatively straightforward: Motion X: That the owners corporation by Ordinary Resolution, agrees to rescind motion X of the general meeting of (date) and reimburse $862.03 each to the owners of units X, Y and Z.
I assume the initial resolution was an ordinary resolution. Generally a resolution to rescind a previous resolution requires the same class of resolution unless the Act provides otherwise.
All that said, with only 10 owners, and if the 3 owners wanted an update on a cost recovery action, was it not possible to just informally ask the members of the EC how things were going? Were they not forthcoming? Was it suspected that they were not acting and this was a move to force some action? It sounds like there might have been more to this story.
our levies average about $3000/unit/year.
And how does that compare with the average value of the units, if you can hazard a guess?
Lately units are probably selling for around $800,000 on average but vary from $600,000 to 1,200,000. We have a wide range of sizes.
For a set of about 100 townhouses on a large site with a large common property trees and garden area to maintain, our levies average about $3000/unit/year. About 90% of the budget is for four items, insurance, a managing agent’s fee, a general grounds maintenance contractor and tree surgery, in that order. Everything else is small beer.
A landlord’s tenancy conditions just for their unit is a separate matter from the owners corporation’s rules/bylaws that apply to all residents. I don’t know what NSW tenancy laws have to say about pet restrictions that landlords might want to impose.
That quoted text from the ruling seems to suggest there might have been bits of the by-law that could apply in some circumstances. Perhaps it said something specific about how it would be handled if an animal were a proven nuisance? Otherwise, I think the ruling just says an owners corporation is welcome to have a bylaw saying whatever it likes but it would be of no effect to the extent that it contradicts existing legislation. Really that is just a restatement of what is in every strata legislation. An OC’s bylaws or articles or rules (different names in different places) generally only apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with legislation. Find the inconsistency and you can disregard the bylaw.
Can you be more specific about what problem you are trying to work out?
Generally class B generally means townhouses where the strata are arranged side by side and the unit owner has responsibility to repair and maintain anything on the unit area. There are exceptions set out in the Unit Title (Management) Act allowing an Owners Corporation to resolve to take over certain maintenance responsibilities, for example, so that the OC does all the exterior painting at once.
Class A generally means apartment blocks where the strata are arranged one above another. In class A the building structure is generally common property because it holds up and puts a roof over multiple units. In class B the walls and roof generally only serve one unit, unless it’s a party wall shared with another unit and with the boundary through the centre line of the wall.
I do still wonder what else is going on behind this question. We have been told that all but one unit have the same unit entitlements. Only one unit has either more than the rest or less than the rest. The questioner either wants that one unit to have more or less power than all other units, automatically, for all future votes.
Is the odd unit out the questioner’s and they want to always have more say than the others or do they want to single out one neighbour to have less say?
“Hives … should be well screened by vegetation and placed a minimum of four meters from access walkways and the front door. The hives should be positioned in a quiet area of the yard, and not directly against the neighbouring property. Bee flight paths should be above two metres when crossing property boundaries and access walkways. This can be achieved by using a barrier such as shrubs, hedges, a wall or a fence.” https://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/901983/Code-of-Practice-for-Beekeeping-in-Residential-Areas-of-the-ACT-2016.pdf
This is for the ACT but other states most likely have similar guidelines. I suggest that it would not be reasonable for an Owners Corporation to prohibit beekeeping. However, I think it would be reasonable to insist that bees can only be kept in compliance with the Code of Practice for Beekeeping in Residential Areas. If the structure of the site is such that it is not possible to comply, then that would mean no bees.
Where I am, we allowed bees for a unit owner on the grounds that they were able to locate a hive within their courtyard, sufficiently far from doorways and where a solid fence directed the flight path sufficiently high above a footpath in compliance with the code of practice.
There are only a dozen lots in the building and all but one have the same u/e.
Hmm. Interesting. I wonder if this could be behind the strata manager’s reluctance. The effect of a poll vote would be to single out just one owner out of the 12 units to have more or less voting power than everyone else. Could this be a case where that would be legal but inadvisable?