Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
kiwipaul said That seems like an excellent idea if it’s legal in ACT. But in NSW I don’t believe it would work because it conflicts with the NSW Strata Act
We had our proposed rule (bylaw) checked by a strata specialist lawyer who said it was OK, here at least.
@kiwipaul said:
Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTIONI agree with all that PeterC says but in NSW this sort of thing needs a byelaw to be registered to ensure future owners don’t come back to the OC for maintenance of this extra cabling.
So what PeterC proposes as a motion should instead be approved as a bylaw as it seems to cover all of the issues. This is not a problem because it is the same proportion of the vote to approve a new bylaw as to approve improvements.
The cost of registering a new bylaw is a couple of hundred $ which I think the Strata should pay for to eliminate future problems. Their is no requirement to spend more money on getting a lawyer to draw one up for such a simple change, just common sense.
In the ACT, depending on whether the EC judged it to be defensible that this is a ‘minor use’ as defined in the Act, it might be done by the EC. However, for the reasons you say of transparency and not being lost in the mists of time, it could also be done as a special resolution that is registered with the Land Titles Office and so able to be found by anyone buying in.
As a catch-all, our EC is proposing an amendment to our rules (aka bylaws) that would say (more elegantly) that anything installed on common property that is only for the benefit of one unit must be maintained in a safe condition by the unit owner at their expense, regardless of whether the item was approved or not, and the OC has the power to make it safe and charge them.
I would suggest talking to whoever is the head of the section that does strata management. Explain the complex projects you have coming up and that you are concerned that you want an experienced manager.
It is a common problem. Out OC is not ordinary in various ways and we had an excellent manager with a lot of experience but she moved to another part of the business. We had a run of less that wonderful managers but the latest one is much better. Nonetheless, having a few experienced people on the EC is essential too.
I’m in the ACT, not NSW, but I would be surprised if you could purchase part of the common property outright. A grant of exclusive use is certainly possible. To get part of the common property converted to being part of your lot would, I expect, require having the strata plan redrawn and lot entitlements reallocated on the basis of a new valuation in which there might be winners and losers. In the ACT at least there is a very high threshold for doing that, perhaps an unopposed resolution, from memory.
I would expect a bylaw for exclusive use for the owner of your lot would be easier and just as effective.
As a treasurer, I have resisted giving the ‘Account Payments’ details. That is, the listing of every single payment for every little thing. Often the managing agent’s description was a bit vague and general meetings would get bogged down on misconstrued debate about items worth 10s of dollars in a budget of $150,000.
However, our managing agent’s software always produces an ‘income and expenditure’ document that lists each budget item with what was budgeted, what was actually spent, what was spent in the year before, and what is proposed for the next year. That has categories such as ‘gardening services’, ‘insurance’, ‘R&M electrical’, ‘lighting’, ‘managing agent fees’, ‘tax’, ‘interest’, ‘electricity’, ‘tree maintenance’ and so on. That is always provided to the meeting as the core of the financial reporting. ‘Miscellaneous expenses’ is a minor item as most things are in other categories.
In addition to the output of the managing agent’s accounting software, I also write a ‘Treasurer’s report’ that attempts to translate into plain english. So, for example, I write that ‘lighting’ covers purchases of new globes whereas, ‘R&M electrical’ covers getting an electrician to fix lights that couldn’t be fixed with just a bulb replacement. I list a few examples of things that were covered under ‘miscellaneous expenses’ (eg. Owners Corporation network corporate membership, newsletter printing, new keys for the shed). I note that ‘gardening services’ actually covers not just the monthly fee for the gardener but also occasional supplies of mulch or new plants.
So, I think you should be getting more detail, though, perhaps, not necessarily as much as at your residence.
With one owner having such a large majority it sounds like you are always vulnerable to ‘oppression of the minority’, a well established legal concept, I gather. If a reasonable motion were put but fails, I would expect you could go to the Tribunal seeking an order to give effect to the failed motion on the grounds that opposition to the motion was unreasonable. The ACT Unit Titles (Management) Act makes it explicit what sorts of orders the Tribunal can give. Perhaps NSW has a similar provision. So, perhaps you could work out what would be reasonable with respect to parking with the other minority owners, put the motion, expect it to fail, but then seek an order to have it ‘given effect’ by the tribunal.
Boy, it sounds like someone does need to shake up the owners and explain about their interest in the common property. Well done so far!
@Merrick N Sniper said:
Our AGM is coming up and PeterC and Whale have been helpful under another topic helping me prepare for the big night. I do hope they’ll also weigh in here.I’ll try.
Here are two items from the agenda, both put there by the current Executive Committee with advice from the Strata Manager. No paperwork was attached, No quotes. Nothing. Apparently it’ll all be made clear on the night. Apart from them obviously not being proof-read, I find them hard to follow. How can they expect to get these through? Especially the second, driveway one, worth fifty grand plus. Is is just me? Am I being unreasonable? (The first, power one, is about a few garages which are on-title and we, the OC, are expected to pay for power to be wired to them. Not everyone has a garage.)
I agree that both seem reasonable things to try to do but the motions are woeful.
Item 13. POWER TO GARAGE – SPECIAL RESOLUTION
Motion: That the Owners Corporation specially resolved (sic) to provide power to garages in order that additional lighting can be installed and those that went (sic) to automate their own can do so. The aim is to have the power back to the lot owner (sic).
Here is my very quick and dirty redraft:
Special Resolution: That the OC manages a contract(s) to provide power to all garages on the following conditions:
1) The EC must obtain three quotes from suitably licensed and insured contractors for the work and consult with relevant owners about details of the installation such as routes for conduit and cost.
2) The OC grants permission for the installation of cabling traversing common property by the most practical and unobtrusive route between each garage and the meter for each associated lot.
3) All costs associated with the installation shall be recovered by the OC as a debt from the benefitting lot owners. All future costs associated with the repair and maintenance of the individual power supplies shall be the responsibility of the owner of the lot at any time. The OC shall maintain the power supplies in a safe condition and may recover any necessary costs as a debt from the owner of the lot at any time. The lot owner must grant reasonable access to enable an agent of the OC to inspect, repair and maintain the power supplies.
4) The power supply to each garage shall be rated at 32 Amps*. The EC has the discretion to approve a higher rating if the benefitting lot owner agrees to meet any additional costs.
5) If any lot owner does not wish to proceed with an electricity supply to his or her garage at this time, they may do so in the future only on the same terms as above.
*Or some other specification. Check that this is reasonable with an electrician. I am thinking of one standard 15Amp outlet. That is robust enough to charge an electric car but is compatible with any standard 10A appliance and the other 15A would be ample to cover hardwired stuff such as lighting, an automatic door opener etc. Or perhaps specify as ‘sufficient for one 15A standard outlet, lighting and another load such as an automatic door opener.’
NB, In the ACT this might be done just by resolution of the EC as a ‘minor use’ of common property granted to the unit owner. I have exactly that for a power supply to my carport. In NSW. I don’t think there is that option so it would have to be a general meeting resolution (I think).
Item 16. DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT
Motion: That the Owners Corporation agrees to proceed with quotes for replacement of the driveway and that the most suitable contractor be chosen by the Executive Committee to have this works (sic) done. The repairs to driveway are deemed to be necessary.
If the driveway is common property and it needs urgent repair to maintain safety, then the EC might not even need a motion. The OC would be obliged to repair whether it likes it or not and the EC should get on with it. However, since it is AGM time and since this is not an unforeseen expense it should appear in the budget being presented to the AGM. If the budget were rejected but the work was necessary then the EC would have to keep coming back to the OC to explain that it is obliged to maintain the common property and must approve reasonable repairs. If that failed the EC could probably get a Tribunal order to give effect to the motion to fund the repairs. However, it shouldn’t come to that if the EC explains things well.
I don’t know how the sinking fund works precisely in NSW. In the ACT, maintenance of a driveway/road/paths on common property would be part of the sinking fund plan and all OCs are required to have a sinking fund plan by the Act. If the sinking fund does not have sufficient funds or the plan did not anticipate a driveway repair or it anticipated a very much lower amount than the cost that now seems likely, then the proper motion would be a motion to amend the sinking fund plan.
The motion would amend the plan to anticipate the driveway repair in the current year, to anticipate a cost (need not be precisely right, just a reasonable estimate), and to amend the schedule of sinking fund levies to return the sinking fund to the planned balance over a few years. EG. if the driveway is expected to cost in the vicinity of $50K then that would be the amount in the amended plan. Then, for example, the motion would also amend the schedule of sinking fund levies to increase by $10K for each of the next 5 years of the plan to return the plan to the previously anticipated balance to cover other anticipated expenses.
That approach supposes the OC has sufficient funds in the bank to spread the cost out over a few years (which is a fair way to manage things). Another approach for the same end would be for the OC to resolve to take out a strata loan, to not exceed some limit but sufficient to fund the driveway repairs.
Another option is that the levies, just this year increase to cover it. However, a resolution to determine exactly what those levies are should be somewhere in the meeting agenda for any AGM. A one-off big jump in levies in one year is exactly what sinking fund plans are intended to avoid. It is also fair that owners across many years (past and future) cover the costs of maintenance, not just those who happen be unlucky to be owners in the year when a bunch of expensive repairs became necessary.
At the least, the motions should say that the quotes are attached to the meeting notice, or give the amount, say whether the cost shall come from the Admin fund or sinking fund. Is that covered elsewhere perhaps by having the cost included in the budget? If so, approving the budget would seem sufficient.
So, yes, this seems like it might all be reasonable but a bit slap-dash and does not inspire confidence.
I hope that helps,
Peter.
If you are broadly in support of the proposals but concerned that they might just be a bit half-baked, but the proposals might get up at the general meeting, you could propose an amendment to the motions.
Usual meeting procedure would say that the chair should only allow motions to amend a motion to be put to the meeting if they would not change the ‘basic intent’ of the motion.
So, let’s say, after some discussion, it becomes clear that the proponents are reasonably confident the proposal should cost no more than $X,000 and happy to have such a limit. Then you could propose an amendment that would add to the motion, ‘…subject to quotes being obtained for the work and the accepted quote not exceeding $X,000’
Similarly, you could add other caveats like ‘…subject to confirmation of X by (a relevant expert)’ or ‘…subject to the structure not extending beyond (some dimension or location or whatever).’ or ‘… and painted to match the building’.
Otherwise, you could speak in opposition to the motion emphasising that you oppose only because the proposals are half-baked. You could encourage owners to vote no on the grounds that the motions should be returned to another general meeting soon once quotes have been obtained and other details provided. If you offer to help develop the proposals appropriately, then your action is more likely to be seen as constructive and more likely to be supported. Thank those who have developed matters this far etc. Remember that the EC are volunteers who might be doing their best at a thankless task.
Four of 12 might make a lot of noise but what can they do? Enjoy your unit and the company of the other 7.
If I have understood correctly, I think you are saying there was a retrospective approval of the deck. It is not unusual for something that was not done according to correct procedures to be fixed by retrospectively doing things the way they should have been done. That is quite OK. Perhaps these 4 are still fighting an old battle that they lost? That also is not unusual. If the matter was raised with the tribunal and dismissed then that really should be the end of it.
If the by-law is not registered, then it is probably not enforceable. That is certainly the case in the ACT where I am more familiar with the relevant Act.
I think the EC could and should provide support to the victim’s complaint to the police. It could provide written comment along with the DVD that in their opinion the DVD, even without sound, appears to provides ample evidence of assault, not to mention a breach of the OC’s by-laws.
It is difficult for the EC to act as police. The EC’s letter could also go to the offender informing that person that they have provided the police with video evidence and noting that the video is evidence of a breach of the by-laws (perhaps omit to mention that it does not have sound). That could be considered a warning. It is fair to tell both/all parties that the video is being provided to the police, so the letter should be sent to all parties. The letter and video could be sent regardless of whether the victim chooses to press charges or not.
I think the above would be procedurally fair and may be enough for the victim to feel that the matter is taken serious and he or she is supported by their neighbours. It also would tell the offender in a clear, unambiguous way that the behaviour was unacceptable.
Transparency, copying to all parties, is looked on favourably by courts.
I agree with Whale. The EC might have been well aware that you had flagged an intention to do something but, perhaps, from their point of view, you had not actually done anything yet. IE In spite of some discussion around the idea, you had not produced a motion (perhaps along with a background statement explaining what it is about and why you think it is a good idea). If they are not in favour of your idea, they might have been relieved when no motion from you eventuated, even though you knew the AGM was due soon. They might not have felt any need to prompt you if you they knew that you knew that the meeting had to be a month either side of the middle of May, and it was indeed called for 6th May which is only a week before the middle of May.
In the ACT there is a mechanism by which an owner can call a general meeting. Perhaps NSW has something similar (others can advise on that) and perhaps you could use that provision if the incoming EC won’t call a meeting later, just for your proposal.
ACT’s UTMA 2011 Sch. 3, section 3.5 “…if the executive committee of an owners corporation receives a written request (a meeting request), stating the matters to be considered at the meeting, from people who are entitled to vote on all motions for units whose combined unit entitlement is at least 1/4 of the total unit entitlement in the units plan…The executive committee must hold a general meeting … within 28 days after the day it receives the meeting request…”So, you might not need to wait for a year to put your idea. It might be better to raise it for discussion under ‘Other business’ at the AGM if there is such an agenda item and then plan to make sure you have the numbers and then request a general meeting later.
For most owners, I would guess, they don’t yet know about your proposal so perhaps it is better to talk to enough of the other 35 owners to be reasonably confident that you can call a meeting and have support from people who understand your proposal (whatever it might be!).
If the renovator is abiding by all the rules, then there is probably not much more to be done. However, it couldn’t hurt to ask the EC to send a polite request saying that it has had a request to pass on a request that it would be a courtesy that would be appreciated to give some warning to immediate neighbours when noisy work is planned. The letter might include the necessary contact details for those neighbours. That is probably as much as can be asked of the EC. The letter could start out on a pleasant footing by thanking the renovator for observing the rules on times etc.
@Matt said:
Pete CDoes Excess payable, mean you gotta fork out some % of cost yourself?
Are Apartment roofs also common property as my apartment roof has started to leak in kitchen, must be a plumbing or roof-plastering problem.
In the ACT, the assumption had tended to be that unit owners would have to pay the excess. When a unit owner made a claim on the OC’s insurance in respect of their particular unit, we used to have the unit owner pay the excess. However, the wording of the ACT Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 is that the OC is responsible to fully insure. That has been interpreted to mean the OC must pay for any shortfall in its responsibility to be fully insured. IE the OC now has to pay the excess.
In most places, I would assume that an apartment roof is common property and the responsibility of the OC to fix. The OC would pay if the damage was due to a defect of construction or failure to maintain. The insurance would pay if the damage was due to an insurable event.
Our OC has on occasions had people worried about what money was being spent on etc. As treasurer, I started writing a Treasurer’s Report for the AGM that translated key points of the financial papers in plain English. One person criticised because it didn’t look like the financial report that you might get from BHP. Many others were grateful to be told in plain english that ‘electrical’ meant fixing the lights if changing the bulb did not fix the problem, whereas ‘lighting’ meant buying a stock of light bulbs so an EC member could change a light. The electricity cost was in parentheses because parentheses means a negative cost, i.e. we were getting slightly more for the electricity exported from our communal PV system than we were paying for electricity imported to run the lights. My ‘report’ pointed out that three items: the managing agent’s fee, insurance and the ground’s maintenance contractor’s fee accounted for a large part of the budget. Everything else was relatively small beer. I pointed out that we have enough in a contingency reserve in our sinking fund to cover almost everything, even if the costs turned out to be double the expectation on any major item. And so on. After a few years of such explanations, people seem a lot less worried about our financial state, which really is very good. I also point out that our levies are relatively low, mainly because we have the good fortune to not be responsible for certain typical big ticket items that other OCs normally have to put away lots of money for.
So, a bit of communication goes a long way. Don’t worry about repeating things. Most people don’t read or absorb everything that comes their way. You will be accused of not communicating if you have only said something twice.