Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If the remaining 5 owners have the gumption to take on the troublesome 6th owner, you could find you rehabilitate the reputation of the place and you might then get a better price when you ultimately sell.
Since having your wife’s name with an error instead of your name would not have changed the outcome of the vote, you can correct the record at the next general meeting when the minutes of this meeting are accepted. You propose an amendment to the motion to accept the minutes to say that they are accepted with the correction to record your name rather than your wife’s.
As for the wording of the by-law, changing that would be an amendment that you could put to a meeting any time in the future. There are a variety of strata lawyers who would look at the present by-law and could convert it to plainer english. They should be able to give you a quick opinion about whether it should be reworded and quote for their fee to redraft it.
Is it just legalese that is a bit obscure or are do you suspect the by-law might actually have an effect different from what you thought it meant. If the latter, you could include questions about the meaning and effect of the by-law. The lawyer should also be able to answer a question along the lines of “So, if I were to do X, would that be a breach of the by-law or would it be permitted.” You could ask such questions both for things you think the by-law should address and things you think it might inadvertently and unintentionally cover.
If you were in the ACT, I’d point out:
1) an EC can have three members.
2) remaining members of the committee can appoint another member of the OC to fill a casual vacancy (but not obliged to do so).
3) While it is usual for the positions of secretary, chair and treasurer to be held by different members of the committee, that is not required. One person could be any two or all three. The committee elects those position holders.
People in other states would need to check things are the same where you are.
So, with or without the 4th person who might be interested, I don’t see why the remaining members of the committee could not hold the fort and instruct the strata manager as required until the next AGM.
BTW. Why did the last two resign, the ones who had not sold? Were they not getting on with the three who stayed or two or perhaps one of those who stayed? If you have one person who is pain, the other two should stay, if only to keep them from doing too much harm.
If it is done already then you have probably lost the old rules and would need (I believe) a special resolution to get them back. However, since they were existing rules, it might be easier to get them back as it could be presented as intended to reinstate what had been the status quo while still also having the new default rule set, which does not sound unreasonable. Perhaps easier than trying to bring an entirely new set of rules.
However, on the pets example, in the ACT at least, a blanket ‘no pets’ rule would be almost impossible to have since it would be almost always incompatible with a provision of the Act which says that an owners must seek permission to have a pet but it must not be unreasonably refused. As a consequence, we have rules that gives automatic permission to certain numbers of certain sorts of animals but requires explicit individual permission for any other sorts. We require any animal to under the control and supervision of a responsible person when it is on the common property but we don’t ban them from the common property. This has the effect of requiring cats to be contained just like any other animal. This was the most contentious feature and very much welcomed by some but strongly opposed by a few. Nonetheless we got our rule passed with grandfathering of the relatively small number of cats that were accustomed to roaming.
Not really answering the question and coming from an ACT perspective:
When we had a new version of the Act, with a new set of default rules (aka by-laws or articles), older owners corporations from before a certain date had the option to adopt the new set by appropriate resolution but otherwise their pre-existing rules would remain in force.
This prompted our OC to review our existing rules. Some were novel and customised for our particular OC back in the 1970s and had no equivalent in the old or new default sets. Some of those remain useful and were left alone and remain in effect.
Some other old rules were rescinded because they were no longer of any effect because they referred to no longer relevant circumstances (eg. were only relevant during the early development of the site) or because the matters they covered were now covered by provisions of the Act. In the latter cases, it did not matter what our rules said because the Act had precedence.
Some other old rules were nearly the same as the modern default rules, differing mainly in drafting style rather than substance. For those we ‘amended’ the rule by adopting the wording of the new default rule.
A few other old rules were tweaked. Eg. we had a rule of our own from the 1970s about not growing plants that could be a nuisance or noxious but it was quite ineffectual because you could always argue the toss. We kept the old rule verbatim but added on the end “…or any plant recognised as an invasive weed or a pest plant by relevant authorities in the ACT.” That retained the intention of the old rule but made it much easier to point at someone’s invasive weeds and say ‘That plant is on the schedule of the ACT Pest Plant and Animal Act 2005’ so please get rid of it. As the schedule of the Act is updated for new weeds our rule remains unequivocal.
Other OCs just had the old default set of rules. For them the simplest might have been to pass one resolution to rescind the entire old set and adopt the entire new default set. That was not attractive to us because we had quite a few rules that were either novel and particular to us or differed in important ways from the default rules.
I hope that helps for thinking about how to proceed. If you have an existing useful rule, I don’t think it should disappear. I doubt that the Act would be set up so you can’t keep old, useful rules that are novel or have been amended deliberately to differ from the default. I expect you just need to look at the right process so you avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. IE update selectively.
Just a general point about the Capital Works Fund/Sinking Fund. An important purpose of these is to avoid intergenerational inequity. Money should go in at a steady rate but come out lumpily, when expensive maintenance needs doing. Otherwise, just the people who happen to be owners in the year when expensive work is done pay. People who were owners before get to use the common property as it runs down without paying and people who come later get to use it in good condition after it is fixed up, also without paying.
So, if there is enough money in the fund, there should be no need of a special (high) levy. Rather, the work can be done now, the fund takes a hit when the work is needed but then gets built up again gradually with moderate levies over some number of years in time to cover the next anticipated major expense, preferably with some comfortable margin for the unexpected.
I am generally in favour some diy when it is easy, simple and safe. It can be a lot less bother than trying to organise a professional.
On the other hand, if it is important to get a consistent job or it needs scaffolding or whatever to be safe, then get a professional to do it once and right. The cost will be trivial compared a few months of the managing agent’s fee.
If the newbies were putting out feelers to see what support there was for going one way or the other, then perhaps they are doing the right thing?
As a member of the owners corp, why not just talk directly, frankly and openly about your concern with the managing agent. The agent will take direction from the committee but at least you will know if the agent could recommend and hire appropriately qualified and insured tradespeople.
I’ll assume the work can be done safely from within the balcony. Otherwise it should all be done professionally.
I expect there would be some mechanism in the Act in whichever state you are in to enable unit owners to be billed for this separately and other than in accordance with unit entitlements but it might require a general meeting resolution. It would in the ACT.
Assuming it can be done, why not present two options along the following lines:
‘1) If you have the time and inclination, prefer to save some money, and prefer not to have to arrange a time for painters to enter your unit to access the balcony, the committee will supply a pot of paint and instructions about what to paint. However, if the work is not done by (some date), the committee will arrange to have it done and bill you as per option 2.
2) If you prefer to have it all done for you, the OC will bill you pro rata as one out of however many take this option. Assuming that at least X units take this option, the cost per unit will be $Y and you will need to allow access to your unit on a date yet to be arranged.
All owners will end up paying for the paint via their levies. The difference is only whether you pay for the labor or avoid that by doing it yourself.’
Note that if a survey finds that there are only very few units in one camp or the other, I would not bother with the above. If nearly all are in the DIY camp, then I suggest that a few people just offer to paint the railings of their elderly neighbours. If nearly all are in the ‘just pay for it and get it done’ camp, then the few DIYers will have to just accept that it will all be done by a professional painter and it will be covered in their levies.
I have been collecting and recycling fluoro tubes for neighbours since there are only a few places to take them and I was doing that for the lights from the common property anyway. I have a little box by my front gate for people to leave them in.
Our townhouses all have gardens and few have space for a trailer. We have long had a central place for green waste to be left. Our grounds maintenance people then clear the green waste periodically and take to a place that mulches and composts it.
We have a lot of trees on site. When one dies or blows over the timber is cut up and left on site. We have enough to keep our wood-fired pizza oven and BBQ stocked with fuel and the smaller stuff is all mulched and reused around the site.
We recycled used bricks and excess left over bricks from various repairs and extensions for paving our BBQ area.
@Puddn said:
What would happen if you did not agree to mediation or attending NCAT?On three separate occasion we (committee) have refused to participate in what we considered frivolous/vexatious complaints but we did provide detailed, polite and respectful explanations to those bodies. Result was our favour.
Guess it may depend on the specific type of complaint..?
I think not taking part could be risky. In the ACT, the notice of a Tribunal preliminary conference (which is like a mediation session) or a directions hearing carries a warning that if you don’t show up the Tribunal could give the orders being sought by the applicant.
I think the best strategy, even though it is more work, is to do everything by the book. So send a response, the “detailed, polite and respectful explanation” but always copy any correspondence to the other party. You could request that the matter not be heard but show up if the request is not agreed by the Tribunal.
Not enough time to put items into a proper meeting notice and then distribute with sufficient notice.
@JimmyT said:
Bullies can be charming too…In recent years I have encountered more charming bullies than the cruder, simpler variety.
@shb said:
Anyway,what i wrote was that its really silly to have legislation,but when one tries to implement it,everyone seems to develop cold feet!
I agree this can go in either direction. On one hand you can find a committee with insufficient resolve to enforce rules/by-laws/articles, leading gradually to a culture of disregard for the rules. On the other hand you can get a committee that is over-zealous about minor matters and that leads to contempt for the committee and is just as counter-productive. Getting the balance right is not always easy.
By way of example, our committee was sticking to its guns on what should have been a simple rule-infringement matter (ACT-speak for by-law breach). A unit owner had erected an unapproved structure that was easily reversible and utterly without any reasonable justification or redeeming features (there was an unreasonable justification). The matter was still continuing when we had a new committee comprising all the old committee plus one new person. The new guy threatened each committee member explicitly with public undermining through letterbox dropping and that we would each be personally facing cross-examination by a QC if we supported enforcement action. The rest of the EC out-voted him and we went ahead, successfully.
Usually there is no requirement to bring a building up to current building standards except if new work is being done. Eg. if the balcony rails were being replaced, then the replacements would have to comply with current standards.
On the face of it, your position is reasonable, and the committee’s position is unreasonable if there are much more major balcony modifications. On the other hand, perhaps those would also not be approved and perhaps never were. Perhaps it is only because you did the right thing by asking for permission that you have found yourself in a position where the committee feels it has to say no.
I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be to permit the attachment of something temporary and reversible that provides the added safety you want. The committee could give you permission for that with a time limit (when your children reach some particular age, for example). Then, with your immediate concern addressed, you could work on a longer term term solution. What about those enclosed balconies? Were they permitted? Does the OC want to take action on all modified balconies? Alternatively, does it want to have a period of discussion about what modifications should be permissible? Will all the balcony rails need replacing sometime just due to age, wear and tear? If so, what style should the building decide to install everywhere (and of course, compliant with the current standard)?
Well, there is a potential for a conflict of interest. However, the key is to have clear supervision by the committee. The individual is only one member of the committee, easily outvoted by the majority of the others. Does the individual present all the receipts to the treasurer? Do the rest of the committee view the accounts? Does the treasurer bring any unusual expense to the attention of the committee and periodically report on how the year is progressing relative to the budget? I think this sort of thing can be managed appropriately if there is trust and goodwill on one hand but clarity, openness and supervision on the other hand.