Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Within a meeting a chair can refuse to put a motion unless it is seconded. The point of ‘seconding’ is to establish that at least one other person wants the motion put. If nobody will second a motion the chair is entitled to think it would waste time putting the motion and the chair can dismiss the motion and move on with the agenda.
So, when an owner has wanted something on the agenda of a general meeting, our EC has wanted to see that someone is prepared to be seen to second the motion and have their name to it on the meeting papers. If so, it can go on. If not, it it is time-wasting and doesn’t go on.
Motions put on the agenda by the EC don’t need to be seconded because it is obvious that a majority of the EC supported having them on the agenda.
So, I would find someone to second your motion and go back to the EC.
The tall bamboo blocking views would be a breach of our rule (by-law): “A unit owner must not use the unit, or permit it to be used, in a way that causes, or will cause, or may grow to cause, a nuisance or substantial annoyance to an owner, occupier or user of another unit.”
That is slightly tweaked from the ACT default rule but I expect other states have something very similar. It seems you could use this to go to the tribunal for an order to clean up. In the ACT ignoring a breach notice is itself an offence, perhaps elsewhere also. Issuing a breach notice requires following a particular process and inclusion of particular details set out in the Act.
We are considering an amendment to one of our rules (aka bylaws or articles) to specifically prohibit growing of invasive weeds on unit areas for just this sort of reason. Even without such a rule, most would have generic rules that prohibits activities that interfere with the reasonable use an enjoyment of common property or require maintenance of the unit.
Having an invasive plant that runs out into the common property could be argued to be a breach of the rules. Similarly, being so messy as to detract from the appearance and enjoyment of the common property could be argued, perhaps.
I have encountered examples of complaints about general mess that I don’t find reasonable. There is a great deal of range in people’s tolerance and variety in what offends one person’s eye but not another person’s.
Is there a reason? Is the messy person elderly or unwell and unable to maintain the garden as well as he or she might like?
About 6 years ago it cost me several hundred dollars for an electrician to fit a submeter, circuit breaker and a line from a neighbour’s unit’s meter box to a power point we fitted in a carport next to my parking space so I could charge my cars. I would have preferred a line back to my unit but my unit is an impractical distance from the parking area. I was lucky to have a helpful and supportive neighbour in the unit closest to my parking space.
If there is a genuine grievance or evidence of wrong-doing there are many ways to address it.
The strata manager acts on the instruction of the executive committee. Right there you have multiple people to hear your complaint. Put it in writing. Be specific, not just a vague accusation.
The EC has to act as directed by a general meeting unless it would be illegal. The OC must have at least on annual general meeting. You can speak there. If the AGM directs the EC or SM to do something illegal then you have the written evidence you need.
If you have a complaint that is not being addressed by the SM or the EC or the OC at the AGM, or if any of the above are doing anything illegal, you can take it to the tribunal.
The EC or strata manager should be able to supply a copy of your bylaws. It is a worry if they can’t. They should also be registered with the local equivalent of the Land Titles Office of your state, but there might be a small fee for a title search. It might be that there has never been a change to your bylaws in which case they would be the defaults that came with the version of the Act that was current when your scheme was established.
Minutes should be distributed promptly after a general meeting, 7 days in the ACT. AGM minutes should include the details of the resolution to appoint a new EC.
A resolution to refer a matter to the EC would also be recorded in minutes. At the next AGM it might be raised as ‘matters arising’.
I agree. The EC has quite properly developed a proposal based on its own observations and research and is now putting that proposal to a general meeting for a decision. That seems all completely above board.
I also agree the motion should be put as a special resolution for the reasons given by our aquatic colleague. Even if it were not clear from the Act, it would be a good idea for the EC to choose to put it as a special resolution and only act on the proposal if passed as a special resolution. That said, if the motion were to come very close to passing as a special resolution then that would show support from a very substantial majority and I don’t think it would be unreasonable to consider putting the motion again to a later meeting.
We had a proposal some years ago for which the Act was unclear about whether an special or ordinary resolution was required. Our managing agent advised the latter but an owner challenged it when it passed by a slim majority and legal advice suggested it could be done one way or the other way depending on some details. Since we would clearly have arguments if we did not get a special resolution, we took it back to a general meeting at which we got an increased majority but just short of a special resolution. (It is easy to run a scare campaign and convince a minority to oppose a special resolution.) We did not go ahead but later the Act changed to make it clear than an ordinary resolution was sufficient (due to our OC’s experience and my submission to the review). We put the proposal a third time and got an even larger majority in favour, easily enough for a special resolution, even though we only needed an ordinary resolution.
It seems odd. However, depending on the circumstances it might not be entirely unreasonable. As for whether it is legal, the EC can ask any question it cares to ask as a survey but ultimately major decisions generally require a general meeting to make a resolution.
I recall one occasion when our EC conducted a poll. The debate was about whether to have a particular facility and, if so, where to put it. There were many suggestions for where it should go and support or opposition depended for many people on where it would go. So, we asked people to fill in a survey. We listed every suggested location, including the ones that were ridiculous, and asked people to indicate for each suggested location, was this the best location? was this a satisfactory location they could support? would they oppose the proposal if sited in this location? Out of that there was one location with clearly more support and less opposition than any other and a motion was then put to a general meeting to install the facility in that location.
So, I don’t know what your EC is up to but conducting a poll might not necessarily be unreasonable.
It really depends on what those works are and their scope. It might be that there is a budget item approved at a general meeting and the EC is now just doing its job to find the best contractor to do the work and/or refining details. Alternatively, they might be doing their homework before bringing a proposal to a general meeting. Or, perhaps the work is maintenance that needs to be done urgently and they are getting on with it. Or perhaps it is something so minor that it can be reasonably done as an executive decision. Or perhaps they are gung ho. Hard to know without further detail. The best thing would be to just ask an EC member.
@JimmyT said:
This is a question for PeterC – what is the rule or by-law in the ACT about not being able to prevent changes that are beneficial to the environment? Is that a planning thing or does it apply to strata by-laws too. For instance, would the installation of an electric car charging station be exempt for restrictions on changes to common property?It comes from the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011.
An ordinary resolution would be sufficient to install a charging station on common property for general use if the various requirements of s.23 below are satisfied.
The EC could approve it for the use of an individual unit owner as a ‘minor use’ of common property if it would not interfere with reasonable use and enjoyment of common property by other unit owners or be detrimental to safety or the appearance of the common property.
IE it would be OK if next to an unit owner’s parking space and not getting in anybody’s way. On the other hand, if it effectively gave a common property parking space to the exclusive use of one unit owner it would require a special privilege (unopposed resolution) for the parking space.
If it were for installation within a unit area then any rule that would prevent it would be of no effect. s.108(3)d.
s.108(3)d “An amendment to the rules of an owners corporation has no effect to the extent that it results in the rules— … prohibiting or restricting the installation, operation or maintenance of sustainability or utility infrastructure.”
s.23 Installation of sustainability and utility infrastructure on common property
1) An owners corporation for a units plan may, if authorised by an ordinary resolution—(a) approve the installation of sustainability or utility infrastructure on the common property; and(b) approve the financing of the installation of the sustainability or utility infrastructure; and
(c) grant an easement or any other right over any part of the common property for the purpose of the installation, operation or maintenance of the sustainability or utility infrastructure.
2) The owners corporation may only approve the installation, and financing, of sustainability or utility infrastructure under this section if satisfied, after considering the following, the long-term benefit of the proposed infrastructure is greater than the cost of installing and maintaining the infrastructure
(a) a site plan of the proposed infrastructure;
(b) a maintenance plan for the proposed infrastructure;
(c) if the proposed infrastructure is to be financed by a third party—the terms of the financing arrangements;
(d) the direct and indirect costs of the proposed infrastructure;
(e) the long-term environmental sustainability benefits of the proposed infrastructure;
(f) any other matter prescribed by regulation.
3) The owners corporation may, by ordinary resolution, decide to hold sustainability infrastructure (including existing sustainability infrastructure) installed on common property and any income earned from the operation of the infrastructure as trustee for—
(a) if all the units are owned by the same person—the owner; or(b) in any other case—the unit owners as tenants in common in shares proportional to their unit entitlement.
Example—incomeincome from an electricity feed-in tariff scheme
Note1 If the owners corporation does not decide to hold sustainability infrastructure as trustee for the unit owners, it holds the infrastructure as agent for the owners (see s 20 (1)).Note 2 An example is part of the Act, is not exhaustive and may extend, but does not limit, the meaning of the provision in which it appears (see Legislation Act, s 126 and s 132).
4) For section 71, an owners corporation is not carrying on a business
if it receives income from the operation of the sustainability infrastructure and the income is used only to pay—(a) costs, including financing costs, in relation to the installation and maintenance of the infrastructure; or(b) costs of utilities used by, or provided to, the owners corporation.
@Greentea said:
…I don’t know if the EC is doing a good job or not. Because there are no meetings! So I can’t read any minutes …If the EC were doing a good job they would be producing minutes, even if all their meetings were conducted electronically.
In the ACT, perhaps elsewhere, the OC can pass a special resolution to no longer maintain some aspect of the common property so long as it would not be detrimental to safety or the appearance of the units plan. So, here at least, it would be possible for the rest of the owners to resolve to not maintain the air conditioner that only serves one unit.
That said, there might be an argument the other way which might claim that such a resolution was an example of ‘oppression of the minority’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_oppression
In the ACT once money goes into the sinking fund it can’t be taken out except by spending it on things consistent with the sinking fund plan and only certain sorts of things can be paid for from a sinking fund. Perhaps it is similar where you are.
The OC could instead resolve to fund the legal expenses by borrowing the money from a bank and repaying the money via a levy.
Somewhat casual can be very efficient, but there is a limit. Our EC often will discuss and resolve straightforward matters by email and give each other more detailed explanations of our views on more complex matters but we always make a point of minuting ‘out of session’ decisions at the next EC meeting which can be as often as weekly and as infrequent as a few months apart depending on what is going on.
Put a motion to a general meeting to engage a different manager. Check how much notice is required to be given to the current manager in the contract and do your homework to see that you would not be going to a worse manager.