Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Another model would be for the OC to own all the PV, one for common property use and four x 2KW. The OC then provides a connection from one 2KW section to each of the four units. The OC would be providing a utility service to each unit (which is assume is covered in the strata legislation in most places). Minor on-going costs would be met by the OC such as occasional cleaning or any periodic inspection that might be required by the electricity network.
Each unit could do as it pleases with the electricity so supplied: put it in a battery at the unit if they want to, or just use as much as possible when it is being made by running equipment by day, or export it through the unit’s meter for whatever tariff that unit owner can get.
BTW. In the ACT (UTMA2011 s.23), the OC can install sustainability equipment on common property with a single ordinary resolution of a general meeting so long as various matters are addressed in the proposal – a siting map or diagram, a statement of costs and benefits, how it is to be funded, and so on.
I have OC neighbours who are naturalists (two specialise in raptors), ecologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, physicists (that sounds really dodgy), geologists, engineers of various persuasions. That’s just the sciencey types before we get to the architects, teachers, librarians, lawyers, diplomats, historian, artists and so on.
This sort of problem can happen anywhere!
See here:
our-animal-keeping-rule < - link for text of a rule that I think covers things nicely.
I agree with Jimmy. If the SC preferred to do nothing about the cats, then they would have been better off to have not minuted anything. Recording a decision to permit something that is not permitted by the bylaws could be called ‘a courageous decision’.
The bylaw seems OK as far as it goes but it does seem to me to invite being held in contempt because it allows some silly outcomes. It does not specify anything about types of animals. Is a goldfish in a bowl prohibited? What about a budgie in a cage? OK, then, if a budgie is OK, what about 50 birds in an aviary?
Why not permit people to have animals within the lot so long as they are controlled and supervised when on the common property and the numbers and/or types within lots are limited in a reasonable way?
@Digby said:
Hi,Do you have evidence of dishonest strata committee conduct ?
This is a key question along with ‘What do you think they have done that is dishonest?’
Arrange meeting of all strata community members to discuss the issue.
Yes, if practical in a small OC. More difficult to avoid a confusing bunfight if the OC is large.
In the ACT, perhaps elsewhere, there are mechanisms for forcing the committee to call a general meeting. Here, you need 25% of owners to petition to have a meeting and the petition must state the matter to be decided.
Short answer is probably not. If the matter were part of a budget approved by the AGM, then yes, but you probably would not be asking if it had been explicitly approved by a general meeting.
If the tree really is damaging your property, then the OC could probably require the neighbour to remove the tree at their expense, not the OC’s, or otherwise remedy the situation. An arborist might be able to advise whether a root at the wall could be safely cut without destabilising the tree.
If the OC were to decide that the amenity of some of it owners would be improved by the removal of the tree, then perhaps the owners could agree at a general meeting that it would make an offer to the neighbour to remove the tree if the neighbour were agreeable and contribute to the cost. Since this would not be a usual maintenance item within the common property, then I don’t think the SC could just spend this money without explicit authority of a general meeting, unless, perhaps, if the case were obviously very good and the owners had been consulted to check there was a high level of support.
Don’t know, but court orders usually have a time limit within which actions must occur. So, my guess (no better than that) would be that the court would say you must accept an offer by a certain time that I expect would be sufficient time to have found at least one reasonable offer.
Extra-Ordinary General Meeting. Some people love using this term. I prefer to just say ‘General Meeting[ for a general meeting that is not the Annual General Meeting.
A few years ago, while our EC was trying to act responsibly and make repairs that were an OC responsibility, the AGM rolled by. A couple of owners instigated a campaign to say the OC should not fund the repairs and should therefore reject or amend the budget to exclude the cost.
At relatively little expense we (the EC) obtained a legal opinion from a strata specialist lawyer answering a series of questions that reflect the objections of those couple of owners. I was then able to read out the answer given by the lawyer to each of those owners’ talking points and objections. We had questions such as:
“What risks might the OC have been exposed to if the current EC had not acted as promptly as possible when this matter was brought to the attention of the current EC?”
“Is it relevant that the managing agent in 19xx advised the 19xx EC that this was a matter between proprietors…?”
“Please explain whether and how Seiwa Proprietary Limited v The Owners Strata Plan 35042 (2006) NSWSC 1157 might be relevant here.”
“What impact does it have on responsibility for repairs if the engineer reports that a cause of the damage is …?”
“What impact does it have on responsibility for repairs if a cause of the damage is found to be a defect from the time of construction…?”
And so on. Clear, blunt answers from the lawyer focussed the meeting’s attention and the budget was approved.
@Digby said:
Hi,Your strata managing agent with consent from the executive committee should be able to issue a penalty notice in breech of the bylaws on your strata scheme to the offending neighbour. …
Yes, but I think the trouble was working out who was doing it.
Yes, PS. Do whatever is required to fix the common property first and worry about who should pay for it after.
Do I understand correctly that this is the outside wall facing the street being repaired first? If so, it does not sound unreasonable to repair the most visible face of the building as the first priority. That benefits all owners I would have thought. Even if your unit is on the other side, it makes a better initial impression to visitors or potential buyers.
In due course all should be repaired. Perhaps the plan is to see how doing this face goes then move on to the next section and so on. Thereby the cost is spread over some years.
I agree with PS and JT.
If approval has been properly granted to a unit owner for this use of common property then it cannot be revoked except by provisions that may vary from state to state (a special resolution in the ACT).
As a matter of principle, in spite of PS’s answer to Q.1, I would strongly argue that approval should not be given without either 1) reserving similar areas of roof for each unit that could practically use it, or 2) using an appropriate amount of roof area for a communal PV system first. This comes from the principle that common property should not be given away for the benefit of only one or a few owners if it could be used for the benefit of all.
If the OC consumes power for indoor lighting of corridors or underground parking or lifts or air-conditioning, IE daytime use, then it would benefit from a PV system sized to match its daytime consumption and thereby largely avoid paying for daytime electricity use.
The following is just general comment on EC communication, not a reflection on the original post.
99% of the time an EC should welcome communication from owners. I can understand that an EC might like to standardise that communication to keep track of it, like, for example, requesting that it go through the secretary or the managing agent or some other means.
Where I am, we had a tradition of always trying to get an EC member from each of the 5 sections of our site. This has advantages since owners are more likely to already know (or can more easily get to know) the EC member who lives close by. Owners often direct comments and requests through their ‘local member’. If it is sent to the managing agent, we expect that to be forwarded to us, whether for action or a decision or just noting.
We do occasionally have individual owners who become a bit over-communicative, sometimes to the point of being vexatious. They tend to pick on one EC member who seems most receptive. Imposing some formality about channels of communication can help in those circumstances, but we would not shut them out.
The flip-side of the over-communicative minority is the larger number of people who we wish would communicate more to us. In spite of regularly inviting comment and feedback, some are reluctant to bother us with matters they see as minor. However, these are often things we would easily have fixed or otherwise addressed if only we had known about them.
“Poor communication” is a common catch-all complaint in my experience. In one highly ironic situation, an owner complained about the poor communication from the EC while attending the special meeting we had called so that owners could ask questions directly of the legal expert who had given the legal advice that we had circulated to owners with an invitation to attend the meeting so that owners could hear it explained further if necessary.
I certainly would expect an EC member to respond or at least politely ask me to direct correspondence through the secretary or by whatever means they prefer to use – perhaps a special email address set up for the purpose.