Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Perhaps it is time to investigate whether there is an accessible roof area that could be turned in to a nice shared roof garden with some seating and a BBQ?
At our OC (townhouses), we had a traditional wood BBQ that was used infrequently but it was in a nice location next to a playground. The table was small and underneath was unpaved dirt. Over the last few years we paved the area, added two extra large picnic tables and a pizza oven (ready made from Bunnings). Now the oven is used at least once a week, people get together with neighbours because, once the oven is lit, pizza cooking is really quick. All up the cost of the improvements was a very small fraction of our overall levies but it promotes community and adds to everyone’s property values, even if they don’t use it, but many do. The location is far enough from any units that nobody is disturbed, either by smoke or people staying up late. Even in winter the oven gets lots of use for weekend lunches rather than dinners.
I can’t see where we can tell what state or territory Susan is in. Anyway, the ACT has the same provision that Jimmy mentions, that a petition by 25% of owners can require the EC to call another general meeting. The petitioners must state the matter to be considered by the meeting. All you have to do is convince a small number of people that ‘there are questions to be answered’.
I know from first hand experience that a minority of nay-sayers can easily get plenty of other owners worried with such rhetoric. It is not necessary to say what those question are or what your answers might be.
I agree that a strata loan would be an option, as would individuals getting loans as required to meet the levy for necessary maintenance of your common property.
If it were in the ACT, 5 in favour, 4 opposed would be a pass. It would not matter that another 6 chose to not take part in the meeting, either in person or by appointing a proxy. The motion would only fail if it could be shown that the meeting was in some way irregular. For example, if insufficient notice was given for the meeting or not all owners were notified.
In other states/territories it might be that a special resolution is required for a financial resolution. In that case, 5:4 would not be sufficient.
If 75% is required where you are, then 5 of 9 units might amount to 75% if the vote was conducted as a ‘poll vote’. If the vote were conducted as a poll then the votes are weighted according to unit entitlements. The 5 in favour might have had the larger units with more unit entitlements adding up to more than 75% while the 4 opposed might have had smaller units with fewer unit entitlements adding up to less than 25%.
Another option would be to appeal to the state Tribunal, ACAT in the ACT, VCAT in Victoria, etc. They could rule that the motion is of no effect if it could be shown that the meeting was irregular. In the ACT the ACAT can also give an order to deem a motion that passed to have failed if the Tribunal can be convinced that it was not reasonable that the motion passed. [Conversely it can give effect to a failed motion if opposition to the motion is unreasonable.] Perhaps you can show that the motion should not have passed on the grounds that the expenses are unnecessary or unreasonable? However, be aware that the owners corporation has an absolute obligation to maintain the common property so it can not readily just decide to not do the maintenance. [In the ACT, perhaps elsewhere, there is a mechanism but it requires a special resolution to decide to not maintain some aspect of the common property and the OC can only make that decision if it would not adversely effect safety or the appearance of the common property – EG. the OC could decide to no longer maintain an obsolete bit of equipment hidden away in a plant room or cupboard if it were safely disconnected from whatever it did.]
JC,
I suggest a few things:
Ask your manager what levies are in similar buildings. You might get a helpful answer. Ask your neighbours to ask all their friends if they are in similar buildings and collate the results.
Look at your budget. Do certain items stand out as major expenses? If so, ask why those in particular are such a large fraction of the budget.
Is a lot going into your sinking fund? If so, that might be reasonable if it had been run down too low previously. Is there a sinking fund plan? There should be and it will show anticipated maintenance for which the cost is being spread over time. If levies are high it might be that you have a responsible EC making sure important maintenance will happen.
When making comparisons be aware of quirks of your building that might account for a difference from an apparently similar building. EG. Our development was built at the same time in similar style by the same architect in the same city to another. Our levies are distinctly lower than theirs. The difference is because they are catching up their sinking fund and their fund has to cover more than ours. We are lucky that much of our utility conduits (sewer, water etc) are in easements and not our responsibility to maintain so we didn’t need to have provisions for certain major repairs that the other development has had.
I would think if the meeting has voted then that is that. In the ACT there are several mechanisms to overturn a decision. Perhaps you have similar provisions.
1) if the meeting proceeded with a ‘reduced quorum’ the decisions do not come ‘into effect’ for 30 days, so there is time to rally the troops to call another meeting to reverse the decision.
2) In any case, a petition by 25% of owners (or unit entitlements) can require the EC to call a general meeting if the topic is specified. It would be a brave EC that pushed ahead when a new meeting had been called to review the decision.
3) You could apply to the Tribunal for an order to overturn a decision on the grounds that it would be ‘unreasonable’ for the decision to proceed. Grounds could include that new information has come to light that make the decision unreasonable. You don’t have to prove that people were being unreasonable at the time of the meeting, you just have to convince the Tribunal that it would not be reasonable to proceed with the decision. Perhaps it would be unfair to some owner in a way that was not fully appreciated at the time?
@Whale said:
Shercom – our resident ACT “Strata Guru” PeterC hasn’t jumped in as yet, so I can only …Sorry, I don’t know on this one. While we do a lot the work ourselves at our OC, we also have a managing agent to actually keep the books in order.
The power consumption would be trivial and pursuing the matter (when surely there are more important matters to attend to) would make the EC seem petty. Any owner at could occasionally have trades people needing access to power. Regard it as a generally useful facility available to whoever needs it. To take a substantial amount of power would require being plugged in with something high powered running continuously for weeks.
Quite a few years ago I had a neighbour with two parking spaces and one car. I had two parking spaces and 3 cars. We came to an arrangement whereby I informally rented my neighbour’s spare space. More recently we again had three cars to accommodate and a different neighbour was happy just to let me use their spare space.
They are your minutes so insist!
I am surprised that fences would be paid for by insurance. Usually insurance would pay if a particular event caused damage – somebody backed a car into the fence, for example, or it was washed away when a water main burst. Routine repair, maintenance and eventual replacement is generally not funded by an insurer.
If WA is like the ACT, the Act requires the owners corp to be fully insured. However, you can’t get utterly ‘full’ insurance because every insurer has an excess on their policies. To the extent that the OC is not fully insured, it has to pay the difference. There are moves here by some to try to have that changed so the excess for repairs to individual units can be charged to those unit owners.
There might be a pedantic point to be made about ‘upgrades’ requiring more than is required for ‘maintenance’. Maintenance is an obligation anyway so if the old windows were just ordinary windows and the new ones are also ordinary (perhaps only better so far as they need to be to meet current building codes), then that could count as maintenance if replacement was the best way to fix them.
Upgrades could be replacement with double glazed units (say) or just easier to use mechanisms. I would not rock the boat if all or most are happy to have a bit of an upgrade in the course of fixing the windows.
Most likely nothing sinister was meant by the use of the term ‘upgrade’. Most likely it just reflects an expectation that the new windows will be better than the old ones that were in need of repair or replacement.
I would agree with the real estate agent that the wall is half yours, half owners corp responsibility to repair and maintain. However, I would ask around to see what was done for the other steel fences you mention. Were they approved by EC only or by general meeting? Are they in the same situation on common property/unit area boundaries?
I have been annoyed as an EC member by owners expecting a decision yesterday but three and a half months seems excessive. Our OC can usually make simple decisions about uncontroversial matters ‘out of session’ by email in a few days. We let the owner know the outcome and minute the decision at the next scheduled meeting.
Struggler,
It’s a pity the owners could not get their act together and decide together to all benefit in the same way, modifying the area safely, each space correctly allocated to each lot.
If you are in the ACT, the following would apply. Perhaps where you are there is a similar provision in the relevant strata legislation:
s.35 Recovery of expenditure resulting from member or unit occupier’s faultThis section applies if an owners corporation for a units plan has in carrying out its functions incurred an expense, or carried out work, that is necessary because of—
(1) (a) a wilful or negligent act or omission of a member of the corporation, or an occupier of the member’s unit; or
(b) a breach of its rules by a member of the corporation, or an occupier of the member’s unit.
(2) The amount spent or the cost of the work is recoverable by the owners corporation from the member as a debt.
(3) If the owners corporation recovers an amount under subsection (2) from a member for an act, omission or breach of an occupier of the member’s unit, the member may recover the amount from the occupier as a debt.(4) In this section:
work, carried out by an owners corporation, means maintenance or anything else the corporation is authorised under this Act to do.
I suggest that failing to allow access when the OC had done all it could to negotiate a reasonable and convenient time for access to undertake necessary work would amount to causing an expense through a negligent or wilful act. So, bill them.
You probably need to be a little more explicit to get much comment. What sort of bad experience? Dealing with the Executive Committee, a strata manager, neighbours?