Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Austman said:
…I’m sorry to harp on the matter but one of my committee members wants the committee to contact the council as the legal representative of all the owners about some matters where opinions are likely to vary. I don’t think that’s right at all.It really comes down to whether the majority of the committee is confident this particular opinion is widely held by the owners generally. That is for them to satisfy themselves about. You disagree, so argue your case. Conduct a straw poll of the next 10 people you see rather than both sides speculating about how widespread a particular opinion is.
Even if the committee actually has hard evidence that opinions vary, they might still be able to honestly and reasonably represent a view that “Many, though admittedly not all, of our owners are concerned about X because of Y”. In my opinion, owners’ opinions do not need to be unanimous before the committee could act.
The committee just needs to qualify its statements honestly and appropriately in what is written or in what an appointed representative is asked or authorised to say:
- “Some of our owners have asked us to pass on their concern that…” or
- “Many of our owners are concerned…” or
- “Almost all our owners…” or
- “A recent general meeting resolved that…” or
- “Our committee members are concerned about … and we intend to draw this and your response to the attention of our owners”.
There are many ways to avoid overstating or misrepresenting what is being represented when making representations to some authority!
@Austman said:
Thanks Sir Humphrey. That’s the sort of reference I’m looking for. I’m a strata owner in the ACT as well. But just above that, in the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011, is a list of committee functions. It’s pretty clear to me that there are considerable limitations. And Part 3 Functions of owners corporations lists exactly what an OC’s functions are that committee can exercise. Again they are quite limited.Yes, the ACT’s UTM Act Part 3, s.16(1) lists the functions of the OC as follows:
An owners corporation for a units plan has the following functions:
(a) the enforcement of its rules;
(b) the control, management and administration of the common property;
(c) any other function given to the corporation under this Act or another territory law.
And then Part 3 and elsewhere in the Act provides more detail. I would argue that s.16(1)(c) covers comment on development proposals in the neighbourhood. There will be other territory law to do with development proposals and consultation with anyone with an interest in nearby property. The OC is a (legal) ‘person’* with an interest in nearby development and entitled to comment. Even beyond any formal development consultation process, there would be ordinary legal rights to free speech which can be exercised by the OC as much as anyone else.
Obviously, the OC should refrain from expressing an opinion on some matter not even remotely linked to the management, use or enjoyment of its property. On the other hand, I think it should comment if, for example, there is a proposal that would result in a direct effect such as extra noise or shading of the property or an indirect effect such as a loss of amenity to the owners through redevelopment of nearby open space or other local facilities enjoyed by the owners.
*s.8 and 9 provide the OC with the characteristics of a ‘legal personality’. In a recent matter at the ACT Magistrates Court, the magistrate strongly hinted to me that I needed to amend our application (I am not a lawyer but I was representing our EC). We were asking for an enforcement order that would enable the EC to enforce a Tribunal order. A unit owner had been ordered by the Tribunal to remove an unapproved structure on their unit by a certain date but had not done so. Now we wanted authority for the EC to enter the unit and remove the structure. ACT Magistrates Court rule 2442 said the Court could appoint a ‘person’ to do something that another person had been ordered to do but failed to do. What we needed to do was establish who was the legal personality to whom the rule could be applied. From the UTM Act the OC was a ‘person’ that could be authorised ‘to do a thing’, the EC was not a ‘person’. The order would authorise the OC to do that which the unit owner had been ordered to do although it followed that it would be the EC that could exercise that function given by the court order. It further followed from default rule 10, which our OC had adopted, that the EC could exercise that function by appointing a representative (IE an appropriate tradesperson) to do the actual removal of the unapproved structure and making good.
Re the legality question: I expect most states have provisions like the ACT. Here, in the absence of a general meeting resolution directing it, the executive committee “exercises the functions of the Owners Corporation as it considers appropriate”. I think it is reasonable to consider it a function of the Owners Corporation to comment on development proposals in the surrounding area, just as any other land owner might express its interest in nearby proposals.
So, if a general meeting resolved that the committee should respond in a particular way to a development proposal in the vicinity, then that is what it must do. In the absence of such a resolution, the committee can represent the interests of the owners as it considers appropriate.
If committee members are feeling unsure that they are accurately representing the views of owners, they could make a point of asking the next 10 people they meet on the stairs or in the car park. It shouldn’t be hard to quickly get a feel for how residents feel.
I don’t see why the committee could not send a letter saying whatever is the considered opinion of the members of the strata committee. That would not be purporting to know the views of all members of the owners corporation but should carry some weight nonetheless as a group of people who pay attention to local matters.
I recall an occasion when an owner wrote to our executive committee wanting us to object to the ACT government’s proposal to install a joint fire and ambulance facility about 1.5km down the road from us. We did not know what owners might think of it and we didn’t ask. Most committee members gave this NIMBY viewpoint little attention. It did however prompt me to send a personal submission in which mentioned my membership of our executive committee and I said that I expected that many residents would be pleased and reassured by the close proximity of such emergency services, particularly some of our elderly residents.
The emergency services facility has since been built and I have related this tale to some of my neighbours since. All I have spoken to agreed that the committee was right to not act the bizarre request that we object to a facility that many would find reassuring to have close by.
As a general comment (I know nothing about the particular company mentioned in the original post – If you do, see JT’s comment), I’d say the experience one has with any particular company has a lot to do with the particular individual manager assigned to you.
It’s a bit like being in school. Overall a school might be pretty good but your particular teacher is not. Or vice-versa, you might have a brilliant teacher in a school that is otherwise undistinguished.
Is the access to the balcony which is to be repaired via the unit that has exclusive use of it? If so, then the tenants of that unit would seem to be suffering rather more if they have to accommodate access for tradies traipsing through their place.
Sometimes neighbours have work done and you just have to put up with a bit of noise and disruption.
Normally I tend to favour being flexible so that decisions on simple matters can be made quickly by email and then formally minuted at the next meeting. However, when some committee members are being left out, that is when you have to insist on formal process.
At the next meeting, make a point about the need to minute decisions. Insist that the minutes record that you did not take part in the decision because it was not communicated to you. Put things onto the agenda, even when you suspect the others have gone behind your back, to force a discussion.
Keep insisting that the minutes record your exclusion from the decision even if the numbers are against you to change the decision. I guess sometimes you might support the decision but were just left out of discussion. Then insist that the meeting minutes record a decision was taken out of session without your knowledge but you would support it. IE, get pedantic about process.
Put a motion to the committee that any instruction to the strata manager that purports to be a committee decision must be CC’d to all committee members. How could anyone object to that?
If this were the ACT, then this would not be legal. Here levies are payable for each unit in proportion to unit entitlements. To levy according to some other method requires an unopposed resolution of a general meeting.
We have over a 100 units yet our owners would be up in arms if $8K went missing!
Agree with JT. Check your meter and see that it matches your bill. Also, it could be that the earlier bill was a low guesstimate and the current bill has an actual reading bringing things correctly up to date. That was the explanation of my mother’s higher than expected gas bill.
Also, depending on what you use electricity for, there might really be a big seasonal difference.
Back to the solar question: One more option to consider, though more complex than the OC simply attaching PV to its own circuit to offset its own common property electricity consumption. Some places have installed so much PV generation that they can supply from the common property to individual lots through a more complex billing arrangement. Search through ReNew Economy and One Step Off the Grid sites as well as Green Strata for examples.
BTW Are the meters in the basement also where the car parking is? If so, another thing to think about is having cabling from each lot’s meter to its parking space with an ordinary 15A outlet. That would enable the lot owners to get a plug-in EV or hybrid at any time and greatly simplify billing. It would just automatically go to each lot’s electricity account. The lot owners would then have an incentive to opt for time of use metering which would have the EV charging shifted off the evening peak.
Agreed. If the cause is a defect of the common property then the OC has to repair the common property so it doesn’t keep happening and fix the damage to your unit caused by the defect of the common property. It is a separate matter for the OC to sort out whether they can identify an insurable event that caused the defect that caused the damage and get their insurance to cover the cost.
Some questions to consider:
Does your roof and the relative position of each unit’s electricity meter make it feasible to fill the roof with each unit having a portion? Then you could have what looks like one big array but is actually multiple smaller arrays, one per unit.
Alternatively, does the OC have a nice steady load running all day (say corridor or underground parking lights and fans) that could be neatly matched to the output of a larger PV system so that you consume all or most of what you could make through the day?
In either scenario each lot owner gets equitable use and benefit out of the common property, either through reduced personal electricity bills or through reduced levies due to the lower OC electricity bill.
I am not across the NSW legislation but I expect that you would need a special resolution to install for each unit because there would be a by-law making each unit responsible to repair and maintain their bit of PV.
For the communal system feeding the common property electricity circuit, it might be only an ordinary resolution but I don’t know. If you were in the ACT you would do this using s.23 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011.
Also, with or without installing PV, has the OC converted all its lighting to more efficient globes? Even recently constructed buildings can have an obscene quantity of 50W halogen globes, installed at low cost to the developer and high on-going cost to the residents.
BTW. If it turns out the office bearers get this insurance and are then found liable for having exceeded their powers in getting the insurance for the OC, then at least they are covered by the insurance! ;0)
@gwyn said:
We are a small complex of 7 villas. We have five resident/owners on the SC. We are looking at renewing our insurance but are considering taking out some cover under the Office Bearers Legal Liability policy which we have never had .First question: please give a ballpark of what sort of premium cost this might be. (I can’t get an answer from the insurer or the Strata Manager)
We have it but it has always been part of a bundle in the general strata insurance policy.
Second Question: do you recommend including this cover?
The five committee members have agreed to include the cover by informal discussion, but the Strata Manager reckons we need an Extraordinary Meeting of the Owners Corp (which means the other two owners included) who are not residents. The Strata Manager quotes us $330 to hold the meeting.
I doubt it would cost much. In spite of having similar confusion to that expressed by JT above, I would include it since it is typically part of a comprehensive strata insurance policy.
With only 7 units, if you have to have a general meeting, why not just call a meeting yourselves? Ask the strata manager to mail the notice to the two non-residents. Surely you can have the meeting on-site in someone’s living room. The two non-residents could attend or send an absentee vote or proxy or just not bother to take part.
Third question: is this matter insignificant enough that the committee members can agree without the cost etc of a formal meeting being called?
As for whether you need a general meeting to approve the expenditure: I presume you have a budget agreed by resolution of the last AGM. If an insurance policy including this cover would not be very different from the amount budgeted for strata insurance, then I think you can go ahead. What was the form of the resolution on insurance at the AGM? If it was that the SC renews insurance when in falls due with the amount in line with a valuation of the property or the insurer’s recommendation for increase since the last valuation or something like that, then it is probably OK for the committee to decide to renew with a general strata insurance that includes this cover.
When most bills are routine and consistent from one month or quarter to the next, it should not be too hard for strata managers to be sufficiently on the ball to notice the occasional one that deviates substantially from business as usual. Similarly, the treasurer should be on the ball too. One or the other, preferably both, should pick it up.