Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Make sure everything is in writing and refer in writing now to anything that was not put in writing earlier. Perhaps getting the insurer involved is still a good idea. Be utterly open with them. Tell them about the stop work orders etc to demonstrate that the OC has tried to do everything by the book. Write to the owners generally with the insurer’s advice. They should know that they have a neighbour who is jeopardising their interests and that the executive is doing all it can to protect their interests.
@g said:
No, the OC always overrides the SC and can take back any powers delegated to the SC…
This is correct. No matter what the topic, even if the OC has delegated one of its functions, it retains the power to exercise that function when it cares to. A general meeting resolution trumps a decision by the strata manager or the committee.
You could just notify the insurer that unapproved alterations are taking place and you are concerned about the state of the fire-alarm. You could ask them to inform you (as an owner, even if you are not on the committee) whether this has an effect on your insurance cover. Copy in the managing agent and committee, then stand back. 😉
@supersleuth said:
HiI have a question in relation to this. We are having our EGM tomorrow night, largely to determine our new by laws under the Act. I have a proxy for one other owner. Firstly, am I able to use her proxy to vote on the by laws and also we both have a reasonable amount of unit entitlements. Would this have some bearing in relation to the vote?
I am not 100% sure for non-ACT legislation, but generally, I think, unit entitlements only count if someone demands a ‘poll vote’. That is, by default voting is one lot = one vote and only if someone demands a poll vote must votes be weighted by unit entitlements.
If you are thinking to demand a poll vote then it would be a nice courtesy, though not required, to let the managing agent or chair know about it in advance. In a large OC it can slow and complicate the voting and it helps to have a spreadsheet set up in advance.
SS, Perhaps it would serve a greater purpose in the long run if the by-law were to pass and then your kitchen renovation were knocked back by the SC. Then you could take it to a GM and their refusal would be exposed as petty and unreasonable, since they would have no good reason to present and all could readily see that no other owner could suffer any detriment from a kitchen renovation entirely internal to your unit. Other owners might then be inclined to give the SC a kick in the pants out of fear that their reasonable proposals might also be refused.
Since the EGM is tomorrow, I would now just wait to see if the by-law passes. If it does and the committee meets soon after and approves your proposal, all is well. The delay is irritating but not the end of the world.
If the SC does not approve your proposal, there are ways to deal with that if the decision was unreasonable. Even if the new by-law passes and allows the committee to approve applications for minor alterations a decision of a general meeting over-rides any decision of the committee. Similarly, the Tribunal can over-ride unreasonable decisions. So, if the SC does not approve your minor alteration and if their objections were unreasonable, there are ways to deal with it. I suggest you write back here if that happens.
I agree it is more logical that your proposal should have been on the EGM agenda, possibly the last to be approved that way, then the by-law motion. That way, you could have had an approval even if the by-law did not pass. In principle, of course, it is possible that both motions would fail. Or, your approval might have failed but then the by-law passed.
If your proposed alteration is genuinely minor, why do you think the SC is inclined to refuse permission? I cannot think of any reason a SC could have for refusing a kitchen renovation if there is no effect of the appearance from outside or on anything structural. Even if you had appalling taste in colours and finishes and proposed an impractical layout for the kitchen, that would be your problem, not theirs 😉
Most OCs will have a rule/bylaw/Article requiring approval from the OC for erection or alteration of a structure at a unit. So, if it is a boundary fence between two units, those two unit owners would need OC approval to erect or alter the structure.
You have my sympathy. A coup is never pleasant and resentments can simmer for decades, but congratulations for being prepared to take this on rather than sitting back.
I am not familiar with the Victorian legislation but I expect it is similar to the ACT legislation. Here, the legislation just says “The committee must elect a chairperson.” without any further comment on process. I would say that if the committee has now elected you to be chairperson that automatically means that the person previously elected to be chairperson is no longer the chair.
I think you were right to offer the 7 days to provide evidence that you had not acted properly. Make sure the committee has minuted the decision to offer that with the date and at the next meeting minute that no evidence was presented. If you have the rest of the committee at least a solid majority behind you, you should be OK. Just be prepared for a lot of bluff and bluster from the deposed.
Does the managing agent have a boss or head office who could be phoned? Does the managing agent work out of an office somewhere? You could just show up and ask to see someone in charge if your manager does not appear.
What about the treasurer and secretary? Are they on side?
As for the matter of getting quotes etc. I don’t think it is necessarily wrong that your previous chair was getting quotes or researching particular matters. My experience on an executive committee has been that often it is quicker and easier for some matters to just organise some quotes myself on one matter while some other committee member might research and chase up quotes for some other matter. By the time you explain what it is about to the manager and they get someone to visit who needs to talk to someone on the ground anyway, often it would have been less work to have done it yourself. What is not good is if the chair was making unilateral decisions and not keeping the rest of the committee informed and involved.
I have heard ‘ultra vires’ used quite a lot over the last 8-9 years that I was an EC member. Sometimes appropriately by lawyers, other times from various grumpy EC and OC members.
@Lady Penelope said:
…I personally find that Mediation suits ‘bossy’ and ‘assertive’ people whereas it does not suit ‘quieter’ and ‘less confident’ people. Some people are better ‘talkers’ and some people are better ‘writers’…If the mediator is any good they should help to even things out by ensuring the quieter person get a turn to speak without pressure and allowing them to gather their thoughts.
For those who would be “better ‘writers'”, it would be reasonable, I think, to come to mediation with some written prepared notes to speak to and to have copies for the other party to refer to as they hopefully respond reasonably to your various points.
Does the chair get a casting vote where you are?
Are the members all agreed on colour, whether in colour bond or timber? Perhaps if those favouring one material or the other might split once colour is discussed.
A compromise perhaps: colour bond might be better for the street face but timber could be used between units (assuming the layout is like that)?
The OC can direct the committee within the bounds of the law and unnecessary identification and embarrassment of residents is best avoided, though harder to do in NSW where minutes are publicly displayed. And then there is the matter of proper and accurate recording of committee decisions, preferably with reasons for the decision also recorded. What if the minutes are so vague you can’t tell what they mean yet you need to rely on them for some legal matter? So, if the committee has reason to discuss and record a decision relating to a particular resident, how to avoid causing gratuitous embarrassment or offence?
A starting point would be for the OC to direct the committee to refer to ‘the owner of lot no. XX’ rather than naming the person in any minutes. A casual reader of the minutes might not know who that person is so some anonymity would result.
Perhaps bypass the strata manager and try talking to someone on the committee?
Someone there might take up your cause. Even without a legal change of use, they might be able to exert some pressure on the 4WD owner to park within his space and remove some his excess storage of materials.
Alternatively, the committee might know somebody who might be happy to let you park in their unused space if you let them store things in your space, as JT suggested.
If I understood correctly, I think gwyn is saying that the entire building of each townhouse is set a few meters within the lot boundaries. While I am less familiar with NSW, I think that would mean that the townhouse is entirely the lot owner’s to maintain. I don’t think that this depends on any verbal agreement or require any more documentation than the strata plan. If it is to the inside of the lot boundary, doesn’t that make it the lot owner’s responsibility to maintain, in NSW as elsewhere?
I am rather fond of the relaxed, not-excessively-neat look created by having ad-hoc washing visible. Occasional airing of a doona over a balcony rail would not bother me at all, but routine draping of washing might be rather better dried and neater if on a clothes rack or line within the area of the balcony. Certainly I think a clothes horse drying rack on a balcony is inoffensive. If the outlook on that side of the units is to just to a mostly utilitarian area of carports, then I would be even less bothered by the sight of some washing.