Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I would write to your executive committee asking the why receipts don’t appear as soon as they are received into an account of the OC (from which it could derive interest, or transfer any surplus to a higher interest-bearing account). If you are on the EC, just ask the managing agent to explain. Remember the managing agent works for you, not the other way around. If the EC is being too timid, they need to politely but firmly instruct the managing agent to deposit all money received on behalf of the OK into the OC’s bank account.
However the strata manager presents things, you (IE the OC) either agrees to the contract or it doesn’t and goes elsewhere.
It does make some sense to calculate a fee based partly on the number of units. Some things a managing agent does would be fixed tasks and the same amount of work whether there are 10 units or 100. Some other tasks might be expected to increase with the number of units. So, a base fee plus a per unit fee does not seem unreasonable to me.
PS. Welcome ‘Strataact’, another from the ACT.
@Cosmo said:
I had a similar thing happen to me a few years back.What I did was; at the next AGM when the approval of the prior years minutes came around…
Yes. That is the way to do it. If you want an amendment to the minutes, it is put as a motion at the time that the acceptance of minutes motion comes up early in the next meeting. It is good practice, and avoids confusion or looking disorganised, to have the text of your proposed amendment of the minutes written out so you can give it to the chair at the appropriate moment. After you have spoken to the motion, the chair can then read out your motion again, and it helps the person taking minutes of the meeting to have it written down already – less risk of further error in transcription.
I recommend keeping your addition/amendment of the minutes brief and utterly objective. It makes you look good and maximises the chance that your amendment is passed.
Agree with Jimmy. Rather than be offended, just write back to say that the work had been done by the time the notice arrived. No skin off anyone’s nose.
So, was a resolution passed that you disagree with or was there just comment or discussion recorded that you feel is unfair to you?
If the resolution was properly passed there is little to do about it. In principle you could put another motion to the next general meeting to resolve that the OC does something different. If it was not reasonable that the motion passed (eg. based on inaccurate information) you could appeal the decision at the tribunal.
If there was discussion recorded that was unfair, you could ask someone present at the meeting whether the minutes are a fair record of what was said. If it is a fair record of what was said but what was said was an unfair thing to say about you, you could put a motion at the next AGM to insert a comment into minutes to say that you were not present at the meeting and disagree with the statement that was recorded about you.
Without further info that is about all I can suggest.
Managers like to have one person to deal with so they don’t get conflicting messages. This is practical and fair enough. They don’t want to follow an internal debate about what to do; they just want to know what the conclusion is. A good way to manage this is that one person on the EC is delegated to have the communication function. A good way for that person to ensure transparency is to CC the rest of the EC into such correspondence or to forward correspondence promptly. This gives opportunity for other EC members to say ‘Hang on. That’s not what I thought we agreed.’
If the situation is misrepresented by the real estate agent or the previous owner, not the owners corporation, then that is not your problem.
The EC could write to the agent to advise that their ad is inaccurate.
We had a good experience with a selling agent a few years ago. We let them know that a fence was not approved or approvable (wrong style and enclosing part of the common property) and the new owner would be required to remove it. The agent explained to all prospective purchasers who looked serious. The new owners promptly removed the fence.
I think most agents try to get it right and yours might have been misled or misunderstood advice from their clients.
As an EC member, I would contact other EC members. Remember the manager acts for you under your direction, not the other way around. If the manager ignores a formal direction of the EC it is a sackable offence.
OCs might like to consider a rule/bylaw/article like the one we recently adopted. Essentially we now have in place a rule that states that anything installed on common property that is solely for the benefit of one unit (aka ‘lot’) is the responsibility of that unit owner to repair and maintain regardless of whether permission to install it was granted or not, and the unit owner must ensure that it remains in a safe condition and is not to the detriment of the appearance of the common property. Also, the OC can take action to make such things safe or remove them if the owner does not comply (with reasonable notice etc) and bill the owner.
The above example would not apply for us as all balconies are with in the unit area for us. However, air conditioner parts or hot water systems that have been installed next to units are now the unit owner’s to deal with for sure, regardless of who put them there or whether there was an approval in place.
I am not sure how it is worded in NSW but in the ACT the interpretation of abstentions is the opposite of what Jimmy T just said:
“1. the number of votes cast in favour of the resolution is greater than the number of votes cast against it; and
2. the votes cast against the resolution number less than 1/3 of the total number of votes that can be cast on the resolution by people present at the meeting (including proxy votes)…” sch.3.16(1)(a)
Ignore that the crucial number is ⅓ rather than ¼ for the ACT.
Here it is ‘votes that CAN BE cast’. So, if 100 show up for the meeting (IE they don’t stay home and ignore the meeting entirely), then the vote goes: yes-50, no-25, and 25 abstain, then the motion would pass. 50:25 passes the first hurdle of more yes than no. 25 is fewer than ⅓ of the 100 who CAN vote because they have shown up to the meeting and heard the arguments (or appointed a proxy).
It would be presumed then that 50 supported the proposal, 25 opposed and a further 25 were indifferent to which way it went, or at least were insufficiently concerned that they wanted their vote to push it one way or the other. The purpose (as I read it) of the special resolution < ⅓ opposed test is to avoid passing resolutions that have substantial opposition, albeit less than would defeat it outright by simple majority vote. People who abstain are not a substantial opposition. If you want to oppose you vote no. So, in NSW, you might perhaps have ¼ of “votes cast”, in which case I would agree with Jimmy, but it you have something like the ACT’s “votes that CAN BE cast…at the meeting”, I would disagree.
One expensive option would be for individual owners to install bollards in their own parking spaces and issue keys to whoever they wish to permit to park in those spaces. If that requires a resolution of a general meeting to permit an owner to install a bollard in their own parking space (I don’t know if it does), and if people want to take that route, you could quietly assemble a group of owners that amounts to a majority to agree that they will support the motion. The owners who support the motion could then all propose it together so no-one is identified as a ring-leader.
If you decide that no motion is required to install a bollard on a parking space that is within your own title area then you could arrange for a ‘bulk-buy’ all at once so you can get it done less expensively due to the economy of scale. Once you know a majority are on board, the ‘group’ could offer it to all owners, including the miscreant. That would be absolutely fair, transparent and without bias. How could he object?
@JimmyT said:
@PeterC said:
I’m not sure the EC should say who they believe is at fault. I think they should stick purely with helpfully confirming plain facts such as stating what damage was present in each unit and that it does appear that the water that caused the damage emanated from a leaking dishwasher upstairs.
That’s kind of what I meant, Peter, but I can see the subtle difference between stating the facts and apportioning blame. The former can allow insurers or a court to make their own mind up. My point is, I think the EC’s considered involvement will help the downstairs neighbours achieve a fair and equitable result.
Agreed. That’s what I meant too!
@JimmyT said:
…All the EC should be doing is providing written support as to what happened and who they believe is at fault…I’m not sure the EC should say who they believe is at fault. I think they should stick purely with helpfully confirming plain facts such as stating what damage was present in each unit and that it does appear that the water that caused the damage emanated from a leaking dishwasher upstairs.
@Whale said:
Austman said….. a special resolution in a large OC is very difficult to obtain (at least 75% must (1) actually vote…..
In NSW the vote on a Special Resolution is determined from the numbers of Owners voting on the Motion at a General Meeting, not from the total number of Owners in the Strata Plan.
So you could have 100 Owners in the Strata Plan of which 25 attend the Meeting personally and/or by proxy, it would be quorate, and depending upon their Lots’ units of entitlement, a vote in favour by as few as 19 Owners could be sufficient to pass a Special Resolution.
The difficulty with a special resolution is that it can be easily defeated by one or a small number of owners campaigning in opposition. They only have to persuade a minority to ‘play it safe’ and oppose. Opponents of something tend to be more motivated than the ordinary folk who would support a reasonable proposal but may or may not get around to showing up for the meeting or appointing a proxy.
@Dodger said:
…Can the body corporate override the wishes of the owners? It contains a small number and the guys that want the change are on it.I assume you mean ‘Can the executive committee over-ride the wishes of the owners?’
Not if it is expressed as a resolution of a general meeting. Also not if it would be contrary to the Act. Eg. if a decision requires a resolution of a general meeting, either by your by-laws or the Act or just a resolution of a general meeting directing the EC, then the EC can’t make the decision.
My understanding of the NSW Act is that you can’t do anything to modify common property without a special resolution of a general meeting. The ACT, with which I am more familiar has a range of ways to do things depending on the nature of the change.
In the ACT there is a mechanism for 25% of owners to requisition a general meeting to decide some question, even if the EC does not want to call a general meeting. I don’t know if NSW has a similar provision.
Meanwhile, Whale’s advice sounds good. Get an application in to the tribunal. It would be a brave EC that proceeds with authorising something that it seems it does not have the authority to authorise while there is an application in to the tribunal.