Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@JimmyT said:
…A simple guide on how to conduct a strata meeting and a reasonable set of non-compulsory standing orders would give the many, many newcomers in strata – and more than a few rusted-on committee members – an idea of how the meeting should be run…While not a simple set of rules in half a dozen dot points, our OC did resolve at its first general meeting in the mid-1970s to adopt Joske’s book on meeting procedure to be the rules of conduct of our meetings. A few years ago we bought a copy in both electronic form and hard copy. The former lets at least the EC members browse a copy and the latter gives the chair something to thump onto the table at appropriate moments. The latest edition has a section on specific requirements of various states’ strata acts.
Thanks for quoting the detail. I recalled only the general principles without the numbers.
Most places would have a very general bylaw/rule/article which says something along the lines of: ‘A unit owner must not use the common property in a way that unreasonably interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other residents’.
The person who parks at the end of the driveway where it does not impeded anyone or apparently bother anyone is not ‘unreasonably interfering’. On the other hand the large 4WD in the middle of the driveway is impeding the reasonable use of the common property by the person wanting to be able to manoeuvre out of their allocated parking spot. So, there is no unfairness or inequity or whatever in addressing the 4WD in the particular impeding location via this rule.
That said, the 4WD owner could start parking in the place at the end of the driveway where parking is acknowledged to be harmless. Then it would be first in, best dressed there since that area is common property and not given over to the exclusive use of any particular resident.
I would be a bit careful about too strictly enforcing one turn each.
I have often found at meetings that the pattern of speaking on a motion is that I talked for a bit about a proposal representing the EC which is putting that proposal or most recently as a non-EC member putting a couple of personal proposals. Then someone asks a question or makes a statement that needs a response. Often it is along the lines of ‘Have you considered if X happens?’ or ‘This proposal could do Y’. Usually there is an answer along the lines of ‘Yes, we thought of that. That concern has been addressed by …’ or ‘We don’t think that will be a problem because…’. Sometimes discussion of a particular concern will go back and forth a couple of times between me and the person raising the concern before we move on to the next question/comment.
By the end, even though I really do try to not dominate discussion, I will often have spoken approximately once for each of everyone else’s turns. What is the alternative? To not respond to reasonable concerns for which there is a reasonable response?
Also perhaps worth being aware of the Australian Standards on parking spaces. If the spaces are narrow they might only meet standards if the space to the sides are unobstructed. Eg. Spaces 2.4m wide only meet the standard if it is presumed that a car door can be opened wider by ‘borrowing’ some space from the neighbouring space.
If a partition were put up between such spaces, then the spaces that previously met the standards would no longer meet standards. It might have been a condition of the scheme’s development approval that some number of standards compliant parking spaces be provided.
If the spaces are min. 2.7m wide after a partition goes up, they are OK. A space with a wall on one side and open at the other end (IE at the end of a row) should be wider than one in the middle of the bank of spaces or if there is no wall at the end and a door could swing over, for example, a kerb.
A space can be narrower where it is presumed that a car’s bonnet would be than in the middle of the sides where it is presumed the doors will be. So, it might be OK to place an obstacle against the boundary if it is only in the bonnet region. The standard, which I don’t have here, I am relying on memory, has a complex diagram of what can be where along the sides of a space. This is to accommodate posts and columns that might support roofing, bollards and the like.
My point is that getting a DA for a free-standing, removal storage unit might be a furphy but there might nonetheless be a DA-related requirement to remain compliant with standards that were relevant to the original DA of the scheme.
I think that as chair you could rule that you will allow one person (the sister-proxy) to speak on behalf of the owner. I think you could also rule that you will permit a third person to attend and observe but not speak.
Yes. Agreed re car insurance. My contents insurance covers me for liability if I run into someone on my bicycle, even far from home, but not for anything I might do with a motor vehicle.
My view is that the OC was correct to claimed on its insurance and make sure the common property was repaired promptly. The insurer is now within its rights to recover its cost from the person who caused the damage.
As suggested above, the person who ran into the wall should have liability cover as part of their car insurance or as part of their home contents insurance. The OC should not be paying to repair the wall.
It really is a huge risk to drive a car without having at least a 3rd party liability insurance. Your own car might not be worth much but it is still capable of crashing into somebody else’s expensive car or wall.
I suggest a paper newsletter in every letterbox – owners and tenants. Make it interesting to all. People will read it when it is in their hands.
Then, also send an electronic PDF copy to all who have opted in for electronic notices, but that won’t get to as many.
Then, put a copy on the managing agent’s web site for documents or the OC’s own website, but few people will log on specially to read it – no use for timely advice, more of an archive.
If utterly dead-locked and if no objective reason to prefer one over the other, perhaps all would agree to deciding the matter by the toss of a coin?
That sounds like the procedure known as a ‘reduced quorum’ meeting in the ACT. I guess the key thing is ‘Did any decision of the meeting depend on just one vote?’ If the outcome would have been the same, then correcting the attendance record when minutes are accepted at the next meeting is really all that is needed. If there was a very close vote then perhaps it is worth making a fuss about.
If that person who came and went left instructions with the chair that could be construed as a proxy vote then perhaps she was ‘present’ in that sense. Not perfect but perhaps not all that dodgy.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the meeting, perhaps NSW has provisions like the ACT for reduced quorum meetings? Here, a decision does not take effect for 28 days. Minutes must be distributed with a reduced quorum notice within 7 days. A reduced quorum decision can be overturned within the 28 days by a petition of a majority of owners who would have been entitled to vote at the time of the meeting. Any subsequent general meeting can resolve to revoke the decision.
You could ask the builder to forward to you the email with the quote sent to the manager. That does two things. 1) you have the quote so the committee can get on with considering it, and 2) you will be able to see whether the email with the quote really was sent to the managing agent when the builder said.
When you do get onto the manager, perhaps you need to firmly but politely make clear that you expect a prompter response, or could another committee member do that and perhaps have the manager sit up and pay more attention? Do you have a chair? A chair’s function can include smoothing the way for the function of the others.
Does the manager work for a larger company? If so, you might try talking to the manager’s boss.
Is there an option to seek legal advice from the Attorney-General on the validity of a by-law. If the A-G says a proposed by-law would be valid, then you could be more confident in proposing it to a general meeting to be adopted and more confident that a breach notice would be upheld by the Tribunal, especially if you provide the A-G advice.
An alternative to test the by-law after the adoption would be to arrange for someone to arrange a short term lease, perhaps even a committee member, for a breach notice to be issued and for that person to play devil’s advocate at the Tribunal. That could be quite openly presented as a test case, I would have thought.
Without having read that Act, I would guess that it has provisions for giving notice (perhaps more than 14 days), reasonable compensation for inconvenience and so on. You might want to check that the OC is sufficiently indemnified by the builder for any injury that might occur on common property. I would be notifying your insurer about this activity which might occur on your common property and check what they would want you to extract from the builder in order to keep you covered.
In the meantime, any written permission given for building work should include explicitly that the permission is conditional on compliance with resolution on work hours. That should give it a degree of enforceability and visibility until the by-law is registered.