Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
For expert advice on EVs and fire risk that is neither alarmist nor dismissive see https://www.evfiresafe.com/
Here is a place to start for reliable information on this topic that is neither alarmist nor dismissive about the risks: https://www.evfiresafe.com/
Re the fire at the airport, the details that are often left out are that the vehicle’s battery had been seriously damaged by some sort of collision. It had been removed from the car but then left out in the weather on the ground next to the car and then other cars were parked in all around it in a hire car depot. For a week that included some severe weather it was left like that. Eventually, presumably with rain water inside the breached casing, it caught fire and then burned the cars packed in around it. It should never have been left like that by people who knew it was severely damaged.
There have been 6 fires involving electric cars in Australia. Another was also caused when an EV following a truck was unable to avoid running over something from the load of the truck that fell off. The EV provided warning to the driver. The driver and passenger were able to safely pull over and get out of the car before anything happened.
Three EVs have burned because they were inside buildings that burned for reasons that had nothing to do with the EV. ie not the fault of the EV.
One EV was deliberately burned. ie arson.
Surveys in the US and Europe found EVs 20x, 80x or just over 100x less frequently catching fire than ICE cars. However, when they do catch fire, the fire behaviour is different from a petrol car fire, which requires a different response. Interestingly, in the US survey, hybrids were more likely to catch fire than either pure ICE or pure EV.
I am not aware of any Tribunal decisions on smoke drift. I just did a search with just ‘smoke’ as the search term and only found two decisions that were to do with damage to property by smoking tenants.
What you need is just contents insurance. The structure of the building and its fittings are covered by the owners corporation’s insurance policy.
BTW. Some contents insurance policies also usefully give you liability insurance for things you might be liable for within your unit and even extend to certain things beyond the unit such as if you injured a pedestrian while cycling.
By definition, you can’t have a special resolution of a general meeting without holding a general meeting. If the matter is uncontroversial, it should be possible to comply with all the requirements of a general meeting – proper notice period, minutes recorded etc – while doing it mostly via absentee and proxy voting.
The EC could avoid imposing a cost on the particular unit owner. They could call and conduct the meeting themselves. It is not complicated. The Act sets out what is needed for a properly convened meeting.
A strict reading would suggest that even an innocuous internal renovation requires an unopposed resolution of a general meeting. If this applies, you would need to put a motion to a general meeting and hope that nobody opposes. However, this is one of the default rules that may be amended by an owners corporation (OC) (Some of the default rules may not be amended).
Many OCs amend this rule to authorise the executive committee (EC) to approve some sorts of more minor unit alterations or all sorts of unit alterations or to only require a simple majority general meeting resolution rather than unopposed. I suggest you check with your EC or strata manager to find out whether your OC has amended the default rule or has adopted an additional rule about internal alterations.
I believe any of the elected positions can be resigned from, which then allows the SC to elect a replacement.
Yes. You can’t force someone to continue being chair or treasurer or secretary if they can’t or don’t want to do it. Then the committee not only can elect a replacement, they must elect a replacement.
Since the OC is named as a respondent and since the committee exercises the functions of the OC, I expect the SC could take legal advice on behalf of the OC and if that advice is that the OC should be represented, then having representation for the OC would seem (to me) to be kosher.
The ‘corrections’, or more properly amendments, to the minutes should be voted on at the next general meeting. That meeting will either accept the minutes as distributed or pass a resolution to make some or all of your proposed amendments. It’s up to the meeting to vote on them. A majority of the meeting may or may not agree that your recollection of the meeting is more accurate than the minutes as distributed.
As for EC decisions, they are not decisions until they are resolutions of an EC meeting. Then they should be minuted. The Act requires that EC minutes be distributed to owners.
I agree with JT. If the EC elects a new chair from among its members, I think that resolution would automatically supersede the previous resolution that appointed the previous chair.
In the absence of anything more specific in the Act, I would assume that the EC’s role and power to elect office bearers can be exercised at any properly convened meeting of the EC.
Bear in mind that whoever is the EC chair by the time the next AGM comes around is by default the chair of the AGM unless they are unable or unwilling to chair the AGM.
So, just check with A and B whether they still want to put the proposal. If it is unclear whether C is speaking only for C or for all the proponents, find out.
If papers have already been produced and distributed, the chair can just say at the meeting that C has withdrawn their support for the motion while inviting A or B to speak to their motion.
So what Exactly is the “something” … ?
Probably best not to be too specific given the policy of this site to “Don’t identify… individuals…”
As JT points out, perhaps someone could have a word to the proponent that they have the option to seek an order from the Tribunal to give effect to their motion if it fails. The Tribunal may or may not judge that the refusal of the owners corporation was ‘unreasonable’. On one hand, the Tribunal will over-ride ‘unreasonable’ refusals. On the other hand, the Tribunal is generally reluctant to over-ride the democratic process if the OC was not ‘unreasonable’, even if many might disagree with the OC’s reasons.If I were on your strata committee and chairing the AGM, I would include the requested motion. However, I would put it late on the agenda after all necessary items and make it clear to members via the agenda that I will not tolerate more than a few minutes on this item.
I would include a statement under the agenda item that: ‘This proposal does not appear to be substantially different from proposals put to four previous general meetings, AGMs in 20xx, 20yy and 20zz and an EGM in 20aa. On each occasion the vote fell far short of that needed to pass a special resolution and the current committee is unaware of any increase in support for the proposal. Consequently, the chair will allow only a few minutes for the proponent to explain any differences in the current proposal or change of circumstances that might increase support. The chair then will allow a few brief responses from other members before closing discussion and calling for a vote.
If yours is “a tiny 1-bedroom unit” and others are larger, your unit entitlements are likely to be less than others. If the owners corporation does the block-wide wiring upgrade, you will pay a smaller fraction of the cost compared with others, in proportion to unit entitlements. The real cost might be rather more similar from one unit to another, regardless of size. So, you might be better off going in with everyone else than doing it separately later. And that is before even considering economies of scale.
This sounds like the best and most practical way to upgrade the wiring. A modern distribution board in each unit can be small and unobtrusive. I can’t see any reasonable grounds to object.