[Sir Humphrey]

Second floor sanding and painting sounds like a job to have done professionally, not by the few people who show up for working bees. Maintain their enthusiasm by encouraging them to work on a low risk, low skill job such as a weeding party to get rid of that patch of ivy in the corner of the property or planting out the new garden bed at the front and wheelbarrowing in some mulch. Make everyone cups of tea and suggest to someone who can’t handle the heavier work that they make a cake to share with the workers when you all have a break. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Maybe there is somewhere the ‘Kellys’ could park that would not obstruct access to facilities? If so perhaps they could be granted exclusive use of such a space in exchange for some benefit to the OC generally (eg. a fee).

I like the bollard idea, but why should the rest of the OC pay for that? A notice to comply could include the suggestion that if the notice is not complied with a bollard would be installed and orders sought to recover the cost for its installation. If the OC gets compliance from the bollard threat, that’s good. If the OC has to put in a bollard, the cost is small anyway. If the OC gets the cost of the bollard back, that is all the more satisfying. 

[Sir Humphrey]

I don’t see that the EC needed to call an EGM to decide whether to engage a lawyer to attend another general meeting, within the above-mentioned limits for legal costs.

A function of the EC is to plan meetings and develop proposals for the OC to consider. If the EC thinks that it would be beneficial to engaging a lawyer to explain certain matters to a meeting and answer questions then I think that is within their function.  Similarly, an EC might decide that some other sort of proposal could be better explained to owners and explored by a general meeting by inviting an engineer or an architect to attend the meeting. IE, in principle, I see nothing wrong with an EC engaging appropriate experts to advise on matters, and, on occasions, deciding that the best way for that advice to be communicated would be in person. 

The lawyer may or may not be useful and the EC’s proposals may or may not be ideas that will be supported by the OC at the general meeting, but that is another matter. At least you have been given the opportunity to directly question the lawyer about whatever is proposed. 

[Sir Humphrey]

The EC could write (or just talk) to the real estate agent whose vehicles are blocking access. Most bylaws/rules/articles will have a catch-all rule that says a unit/lot owner must not interfere unreasonably with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other residents. Blocking access to common property facilities would count as unreasonable interference. In the ACT (perhaps elsewhere is similar) there is a specific provision in the Act for a resident to ask the EC to issue a ‘rules infringement notice’. I would start with asking the EC to ask the estate agent to please observe the sign. Move on to heavier action if that does not work. Ultimately the state tribunal could give orders that the common property facilities not be obstructed. Failure to comply would be a legal offence. 

[Sir Humphrey]

The EC could resolve to invite a lawyer to attend a general meeting within cost limits. 

I recall that our EC once engaged a lawyer to speak to a meeting of owners so that they would better understand his advice on a complex issue that would ultimately require an unopposed resolution of a general meeting. 

[Sir Humphrey]

How are you prevented from joining the EC?  Most places struggle to find people willing to be on the EC. Once you are on, you can insist on a clear agenda. Having said that, I don’t know how NSW copes with its published agendas. In the ACT we are not required to publish an agenda ahead of EC meetings.  Not infrequently we have matters that would be far better dealt with more discreetly without busy-bodies weighing in, such as when there are complaints from one unit owner about another. Anyone who really cared to could find the minutes but generally people don’t. Instead we make a point of issuing newsletters, but we tend to either omit or be anonymous or discreet about individual matters. 

[Sir Humphrey]

The EC could obtain a copy of the standard and do it themselves. More likely, engage a contractor to install a fence who will state in writing is constructed in accordance with the standard and put that on file. 

[Sir Humphrey]

A change to the outside of a block of flats would be a change to the common property, not the unit owner’s area. Even if it were part of the unit/lot, most places will have a bylaw or rule which says that a unit owner must seek permission to alter a unit and then says something about how and in what circumstances permission may be granted. 

[Sir Humphrey]

I think in most states there is a provision for EC members or their agents having access for an emergency (e.g.. there is water pouring from your unit), but that reasonable notice must be given if it is not an emergency. 

The default rule in the ACT states:

What may an executive committee representative do?

• (1) An executive committee representative may do any of the following in relation to a unit at all reasonable times:

  • (a) if the committee has reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is a breach of the Act or these rules in relation to a unit—inspect the unit to investigate the breach;
  • (b) carry out any maintenance required under the Act or these rules;
  • (c) do anything else the owners corporation is required to do under the Act or these rules.

• (2) An executive committee representative may enter a unit and remain in the unit for as long as is necessary to do something mentioned in subrule (1).
• (3) An executive committee representative is not authorised to do anything in relation to a unit mentioned in subrule (1) unless—

  • (a) the executive committee or the representative has given the owner, occupier or user of the unit reasonable notice of his or her intention to do the thing; or
  • (b) in an emergency, it is essential that it be done without notice.

• (4) The executive committee may give a written authority to a person to represent the corporation under this rule.

[Sir Humphrey]

@kiwipaul said:
Their is nothing wrong with creating a new bylaw but it is a bit of overkill IMHO.

Just vote at the next GM by a simple majority to engage contractor xx to clean all windows and remove cobwebs every x months at a cost of $x. This leaves control with the Strata whereas if you create a bylaw the Strata is obliged to continue cleaning the windows until bylaw is revoked via a 75% vote.

Sure. That would be fine too, since it is a thing the OC should be doing anyway. The motion would be simply providing some detail to the EC. Could be even less: Just a direction to the EC to engage a contractor to do it for a cost of up to $XXX. 

I did include ‘as necessary’ in my suggestion so the OC would not be obliged to clean windows that did not yet need it. I don’t think being lumbered with the bylaw would be so bad. It seems unlikely that windows will go out of fashion and nobody will need or want them cleaned. 

Or ask which owners would like to participate in paying a contractor to clean their windows and just these owners pay rather than the Strata.

I wouldn’t do that. The contractor will cost just as much once they are set up and all should contribute. Leaving a few windows out would be impractical and not address the problem of the building looking spooky with spider webs. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Even if the model/default bylaw says the unit owner cleans the window, an OC can change its bylaws. So, it seems a sensible thing to put this beyond doubt would be resolve at a general meeting to amend the bylaws. A new bylaw could state that the OC shall engage a professional cleaner to clean the exterior surface of the building as necessary, including cleaning of the windows. If everyone, or nearly everyone, finds it difficult to clean their windows then this should get the necessary special resolution support.

[Sir Humphrey]

Yes. A block of flats: the OC maintains the outside which includes occasional cleaning and repainting and repairs such as unsticking windows. That is what you have a sinking fund for. For general cleaning that you might do every year, it would be a line in the admin fund budget. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Unless there is some Victorian peculiarity that I am unaware of as an ACT resident, and if the driveway is entirely within your unit area, then you would be responsible for maintenance. The OC would not be maintaining it or even sending anyone to enter your unit area except to deal with an emergency (say, a burst water pipe while you are away) and so it would not be sending you an invoice for work done.

Conceivably, there could have been a resolution of a general meeting at some time that the OC would maintain all the driveways. The ACT has a provision that the OC could resolve to undertake maintenance that might otherwise be a unit owner’s responsibility. Eg. it might have been decided that the development would look better and there might be an economy of scale to everyone’s benefit if all the units were regularly repainted at the same time by one contractor arranged by the EC. You might have some similar provision for maintaining all the driveways?

However, are you sure the driveway is not on common property? In our OC some units have carports within their unit area but their driveways cross common property to join the shared roadway. The unit owner has always been assumed to have the responsibility to repair and maintain the driveway that only that unit owner uses. This is fair since some are plain gravel but others are paved in diverse ways: simple, cheap or expensive. We are about to formalise this in a rule that would explicitly state that the unit owner maintains. However, we have a provision in the proposed rule that the OC can step in to make a repair to make the driveway safe if the unit owner has not responded in a reasonable time to make the repair. Then the OC can recover its costs from the unit owner. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Maybe the EC was not sure if the solicitor could attend till after the paper went out but has sent a notice as soon as possible? 

While it might be nice to have notice of an invited attendee, I doubt it is a requirement of a compliant AGM notice; it isn’t in the ACT where I am. 

I assume the solicitor is invited to be able to provide expert answers to questions that might arise during discussion of some topic that is on the agenda?

[Sir Humphrey]

Normally you would need OC approval to make structural alterations. 

[Author]

Replies