Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Has notice of the meeting already been distributed, with an agenda? If these are new motions and there would be insufficient time to issue a new notice with revised agenda and proxy/absentee voting form, then they can all be bumped off.
If the person complains, tell them that they should have known that this year’s AGM would be held approximately a year after the last one and they could have submitted their proposed motions at any time without waiting till the meeting notice and agenda had already be distributed.
The agenda might include a final “Discussion of any other matters”. It should not include an open ended “Any other business” which might suggest that anyone could put a motion without notice. That would be improper and the chair should not allow it. The point of a meeting notice with an agenda is that people should be able to see whether there are motions for resolutions on matters they care about and would wish to vote on. Allowing matters to be decided without notice or shorter notice than the Act requires is improper (The exception is procedural motions such as to wrap up a long-winded debate and have a motion put.).
The chair might decide, if time permits, to allow discussion of the matters this owner wants to raise but no resolutions. Then, the incoming committee, which will have just been elected, will be able to take note of the mood of the meeting on the various matters and that might influence their decisions through the coming year.
Based on my experience in the ACT tribunal, the Tribunal member may allow new evidence to be presented at the hearing but only with agreement of the other party. The general principle is that anything you wish to rely on should be fully disclosed to the other party and not sprung on them at the last minute. Demonstrating a clear intention to give scrupulous attention to such proper process is likely to win you a little latitude from the Tribunal member if you don’t get something quite right.
I agree with Scotty.
I expect there is a mechanism by which the OC could require a general meeting to be called. In the ACT, a petition by 25% of owners stating the matter to be decided can require the committee to call a general meeting. You could put a motion: ‘that the fences enclosing the areas of common property be removed by the relevant unit owners by some date that gives them ample time and that if the fences are not removed by that date, the reasonable costs incurred by the OC for doing so be billed to the relevant unit owners.’
If they comply, that’s great and it cost you little. If they don’t comply, then the committee is obliged to act in accordance with the resolution. If the committee does not comply due to its composition, then your hand is strengthened when you go to the Tribunal seeking an order that the committee be compelled to carry out the valid direction of the OC.
I suggest that you demonstrate that you have the numbers with a petition for a general meeting having more than 50%. By showing you mean business and have a mechanism to compel compliance you might get compliance without having to go through with it.
Reviewing your by-laws might be a simple matter or might have some hidden complexity. In any case, you should be able to write up a sufficient description of what you would like the lawyer to advise on and they should be able to give you a cost estimate or a fixed quote before you proceed.
Not much different from getting a few quotes from any other tradespeople. Remember, as with many things in life, you can get legal advice that is good, quick and cheap – pick any two!
Your concerned owner is talking through the wrong orifice.
The obvious intention of the Act is that the OC should operate with a budget that is approved by the owners every year. The budget should be set at each AGM. Equally obvious is that the OC should seek to remedy a failure to set a budget at an AGM at the first available opportunity so that it can continue to operate with a budget that has been approved by the owners. That is what appears to be happening with the OC having directed the committee to develop a new budget proposal omitting the controversial item and then call a general meeting at which the revised budget can be approved ASAP. This all seems to be proper and appropriate.
Hmm. Usually GST is applied to levies. The OC pays for stuff that adds up approximately equal to the levies. The OC claims the GST back on all that stuff. GST in and out end up cancelling out.
I could be wrong but I suspect your OC will have more GST in than out and would end up having to pass on the excess GST. Another good argument for metering water for each unit and each unit being billed separately by the water supplier independently from the OC.
Depends what the issue is. Some things are a simple majority of yes over no votes among those who take part in a general meeting. Some things require a ‘special resolution’. Some things must be ‘unopposed’. Others can provide details but you really need to read the Act and see what applies to your ‘issue’.
A further wrinkle is that an owner can call for a ‘poll vote’, in which case votes are weighted according to unit entitlements rather than one unit=one vote.
@Puddn said:
… Sounds odd that a strata plan without all its buildings built could be registered.I am not familiar with the early stages but where I am the date of the registration of the Units Plan (ACT-speak for strata plan) predated the completion of the buildings. The Units Plan was needed to show the distribution of all the unit entitlements of the units comprising the nascent Owners Corporation before anyone moved in.
@millswills1 said:
Yes I agree entirely replacing asbestos doors is essential and I am happy it is happening I just wasn’t sure if that sort of thing should be run by the entire committee. I assume it was discussed with the treasurer. Thanks for your response SirHumphreyProbably a grey area. If there is an approved budget in place for maintenance that could reasonably include this then it might be fine for the treasurer to just OK it. I’d prefer that the treasurer keeps the rest of the committee informed about anything like this that is more than a trivial expense. The committee has a responsibility to supervise the treasurer and SM.
Also depends a bit on how proactive the committee is and the extent to which things are explicitly and specifically delegated (ideally) or just vaguely left to the SM to do their best (less ideal). Some places just leave everything to the SM and get upset if they don’t just get on with it. Other places get upset if the committee has not given explicit approval before the SM spends anything. Cultures vary! Better to be clear and ask if in doubt.
In the ACT, there is no requirement for people with an interest in some proposition to abstain from voting. May be different elsewhere.
If a vote goes differently from how it ‘should’ and that is only because of the vote of an interested party, it could be possible to get a Tribunal order reversing the decision (in the ACT at least) on the grounds that the decision was ‘unreasonable’.
The courtyard walls might not be visible from the street but are they visible from other units or areas of common property? If so, depending on the style of the units, it may or may not be reasonable for the OC to maintain uniformity.
Where I am, one unit has painted the internal face of courtyard walls, which are an extension of the townhouse walls. The particular brick appearance of those walls is one of the distinctive architectural features and I would not approve painting those walls.
Another resident wanted to cover their equivalent walls with timber panelling, and that was not approved.
Neither of the above examples are ‘visible from the street’ but they are visible from garden areas of common property used by other residents.
Our OC adopted the following as part of a longer rule (ACT-speak for bylaw):
… 7) The unit owner must at the owner’s cost repair and maintain any other item installed on common property and used only for the benefit of the unit. The unit owner must ensure that the item does not unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other unit owners or cause any significant adverse effect on the appearance of the common property or the safety of occupiers of the units or of the public, regardless of whether that installation has or has not been authorised by the OC. Examples of such items include, but are not limited to, air-conditioning systems, hot-water systems and awnings.
(8) The OC reserves the right to repair, replace or remove any of the items mentioned in sub-rules (1) through (7), and to remediate any loss or damage to the common property of the OC caused by the owner’s breach of those sub-rules, if that breach is not rectified within a reasonable time after a written request is made by the OC to rectify the breach. The unit owner must pay the costs of and incidental to the OC and its employees and agents to rectify the breach, which is recoverable by the OC as a debt due by the unit owner.
Isn’t that obvious? Demonstrate that their account of events is not true and that yours is.
If the SM is proactive and gets a quote for something they recommend, that sounds good to me. Then they can better advise the committee more fully. But no, they shouldn’t be placing the order without at least an OK from the treasurer.
I am not in NSW so don’t take my advice as gospel about what is and is not common property. That said, on the face of it, you have done your own research and also have the professional advice of your strata manager and both say ‘This is the unit owner’s problem to fix.’ Since the managing agent has given that written advice to the owner, it would be sufficient for the committee to record in its minutes that a question about responsibility for maintenance of the stairs was raised by the owner of lot X and the strata manager has written to the owner and advised that they are the owner’s responsibility. You could append a copy of the letter to the minutes. You could also have a committee member speak personally to the owner to ensure they understand and have received the SM’s letter.
I don’t see why you would feel you should advise the committee to fix the stairs. When people are persistent and bully they often get their way but you should also think of the other owners. Why should you be the agent of the bully in getting the meek to pay for something that is not their responsibility? Far better that you help them stand up to the bully. Often people like this are accustomed to pushing and pushing and then getting their way. Often they also back off surprisingly quickly despite all their chest-beating when they meet someone prepared to stand up for proper principles.