Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Peter Gray said:
One of the units which received the exclusive use right was also given the right to build a 40 square metre deck in the area, which represents a major impact on the unit above considering the area was previously unused.I change my comment if there has been an adverse effect on other residents.
@Peter Gray said:
…proposal to allow the 3 bottom units exclusive use to the common property at the rear of their units. This area was never used by anyone and required the units putting in access doors otherwise access could only be gained by walking around the back of the building…Since nobody else was using this space but a small modification made it useful for three of the units, what is the problem with those units getting a benefit? By the sounds of it, it was not a zero sum game. Nobody lost anything when three units could make the space useful to them by putting in a door each.
Only if the OC as a whole had given up something useful in order for the three units to benefit would I worry about it.
Do you have a managing agent? Often many of the functions of the executive are out-sourced to a managing agent and set out unambiguously in a management agreement. Nonetheless, the responsibility to see that these functions are being performed remain with the EC.
Who appointed the strata manager if you have not had a general meeting to do that or an AGM that appointed an executive committee?
Is there a date when the AGM must be held? In the ACT, which I am familiar with, the AGM must be held within slightly over a year from the previous one. Another constraint is that it must be held within 3 months of the end of the previous financial year.
Scotlandx’s answer is 100% right.
“Neither a motion nor an amendment should go beyond the terms of the notice calling the meeting”
“A meeting cannot travel outside the scope of the notice relating to it… The meeting is competent to consider amendments to motions of which notice has been given, but the amendment must be such that it comes within the scope of the notified business.”
Procedural motions are OK. Eg. a motion to put a matter to the vote if discussion has been going on long enough.
Quotes above are from ‘Joske’s Law and Procedure of Meetings in Australia’The last item on our meeting notices have:“x. Other Businessa) Discussion of other matters notified to the managing agent 7 days before the meeting.b) Discussion of further matters, if time permits.”At our most recent AGM, an owner notified three motions just over 7 days before the meeting. There was not sufficient time to issue a revised agenda and proxy and absentee voting form. Nor was there sufficient time for the EC to compose and distribute a paper putting its view on the motions.The chair, correctly, I believe, ruled that the meeting notice allowed discussion of the three matters raised but not voting on the motions. We ended up having quite a bit of fairly heated debate about the chair’s ruling and not much discussion of the merit of the matters being raised.In the case of matters arising from the previous meeting minutes, I think the chair might allow some brief discussion but, if it looks like going on too long, it should be noted as a topic the meeting could return to under discussion of other business. However, no motion should be voted on. Nonetheless, the newly elected executive committee could take note of the general feeling of the meeting.I am less au fait with NSW bylaws and requirements. I’d just suggest that since you are allocating areas of common property to the individual units, that you allocate the same area for each unit, whether that unit wants its 2KW array now or not.
Would it be obvious who should get which bit of roof for practical matters such as wiring back to individual unit meters? If there is no obvious practical basis for allocation of space then drawing from a hat or something like that sounds fair. I would worry about ‘first in, best dressed’ when it comes to allocating a use of common property. I suggest you make sure it is as equitable as practical for the four units.
A motivator for all units to do it at once would be the economy of scale of having the installer on site to do all at once.
One of our EC members is introducing us to Trello, just to keep track of who is up to what point on which project. It is free up to a point. We have not really got started so I can’t say how well it is working.
So the fence encloses an area of common property? You could deal with that the same way as Jimmy advises for the pavers.
If enough of the other owners or residents are annoyed about it, why not organise a regular block party to be had on that nicely paved area of common property with the planter boxes, chairs and table. Nobody could object to the residents asserting their right to reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property!
On the other hand: Is this an area which realistically would only ever have been used by the residents of the ground floor unit? Is there plenty of other area around the block that is more usefully and comfortably usable by all? If so, perhaps the only real problem is keeping the party going to late? Perhaps only the fence should go so that, at least in principle, anyone could stroll through, even if, in practice, only the ground floor resident would.
At our OC we have many town house units that have blended their courtyard gardens into the surround common property. Such blending is encouraged by policy adopted by general meeting decision, with conditions, and fences are discouraged. However, if someone does want a fence, it must not go beyond the unit boundary to enclose any common property (and must conform to one of several style options).
@JimmyT said:
…our EC – normally dominated by a person who proxy farms on an agri-business scale – has emailed out a newsletter asking owners to give their proxies to EC members, due to the change in the law.When I said they should also allow other owners to put their names forward … the snotty response I got was that the email distribution service was not to be used by ordinary owners “due to reasons of privacy”.
What’s that saying about “absolute power”? …
This is why our EC has not asked for the unit roll. The present EC might be trusted to not abuse it, but what about our successors or perhaps even one or two inside the tent now? For reasonable communications to owners we have been able to do that through the managing agent so there has been no practical problem from not having the list.
@Felix said:
Our Strata of 32 units is in a similar situation as to that of Bonnie L.The EC wanted to contact the Owners but the Managing Agent said he couldn’t provide the Owners contact details due to privacy laws.
My understanding is that the e-mail addresses can be provided if these e-mail addresses appear on the strata roll. Is this correct?
In your reply to Bonnie L you state that as an Owner she is entitled to see the strata roll and copy the addresses of non-resident owners.
This sounds a bit strange that the Managing Agent can’t provide the contact details yet any Owner can inspect the strata roll and copy addresses.
They can then contact Owners and pass on contact details to other Owners.
Can you please clarify this?
Managing agents often say that but the OC owns the list and the EC exercises the functions of the OC, so you can look at the list. However, in practice, our EC avoids having the argument because we just prepare whatever material we want to have distributed and direct the managing agent to distribute it.
There is a risk that an EC member, ex-EC member or just any owner might use the list to create a nuisance or infringe privacy. So, we can understand the managing agent’s reluctance to hand it over willy-nilly.
Still, if anyone really does want it, they can get it, as you say. We choose not to ask an EC. I can imagine circumstances when perhaps we might change our minds because we want to send something confidentially to owners without informing the managing agent , perhaps if we were thinking of changing agents, but even then we could probably be open about it.
There are good grounds to be annoyed with the company who installed it if they didn’t advise that the fence was not appropriate for a pool, but they seem to have themselves covered. The responsibility is with the OC to comply with the law on its common property.
Do you know it will cost $20K? Is it possible that only a gate latch is not compliant, not the whole fence?
Has there been a recent change in the standard for a pool fence? Generally it is not required to bring old structures up to current standard, only maintain them to continue to meet the standard that applied when they were installed. That said, it is hard to justify not bringing a pool fence up to scratch, unless the difference between an old standard and a new one is very minor. Eg. I would not replace every balcony rail if the standard changed to 5cm higher than the old standard.
@Boronia said:
I wonder if these “ghost” owners are paying their council rates? I believe councils can “confiscate” properties for recovery of such rates.And would the council be a source of information as to the owner if they are being paid?
Perhaps there is a way for the OC to piggyback on the councils debt recovery process? Even if it is to just find who is the person doing it in the council and getting an informal briefing. Perhaps it can be formalised? The OC after all is a legal ‘person’ with an interest in the property.
Strata law doesn’t anticpate acts of philanthropy (with strings) so this may be as good as you’ll get.
The casual approach I suggested was before realising the strings attached. I would be philosophically opposed to that. If something is worth doing to improve the common property then the OC should decide and pay for it.
There is a ‘slippery slope’ argument against letting people with more money get to have disproportionately more say than their single vote about what happens to the common property.
In our OC we have a couple of good quality park benches that an owner salvaged for nothing, cleaned up, restored, and put in places on our grounds that are nice for sitting and contemplating the view. Nobody has objected or even asked where they came from but the donor understands that if ever the OC decided they should not be there, he would take them away. If he had demanded money for them, it would have been very different.