[Sir Humphrey]

I would say that any individual owner should make comment if they feel they have some worthwhile comment to make. Similarly, if the EC, representing the OC as a whole, feels that there is a worthwhile comment to make in the interests of the entire OC or part of the OC then it should also submit a comment. 

Anecdote: I recall an occasion when our local government called for comment on a development down the road from us. It was for a government building providing an important local service. One owner put in a negative comment and drew it to the EC’s attention hoping we would similarly object. We could see no negative effect on the OC, or logic to support the owner’s concerns. Indeed, we believed that the OC as a whole could derive a benefit from the availability of the service from close by without any negative consequence. We then submitted a comment welcoming the development. 

[Sir Humphrey]

@puff_ng said:
Name and shame.

Or, hold you fire till you have some advice and perhaps a coalition of similarly aggrieved owners who can share the work and cost.

[Sir Humphrey]

@Queenslander said:
…This means that the motion to spend  $21k to appoint a maintenance coordinator should include at least 2 quotes….

Good one! Having to vote on a motion to not get a second quote for the services provided by the EC member might focus the minds of a few members!

[Sir Humphrey]

@nocreditbob said:
I own a flat in a small company title building. All owners pay the same amount in levies, despite the fact that one of the flats in the building is twice the size of all others…

Do all units actually or potentially contribute the same to the costs that have to be met from the levies? IE. Would all unit cause similar wear and tear on the common property needing maintenance or have cause to call the managing agent? Perhaps the same levies are reasonable?

I know it is normal to allocate unit entitlements and levies in proportion to a valuation of each unit. That makes sense at the start when you are buying a greater or lesser portion of what the developer created. Later, I am not so sure. A larger unit might be expected to tend to have more people in it so that unit might use shared facilities rather more. The larger unit contributes more to the overall cost of insurance on the property but a lot of other costs are probably fixed per unit costs. Is there a substantial grounds maintenance cost that might be fairly made the same for all? If new entitlements were created with some combination of a fixed component and a varied-by-size-or-valuation component, perhaps the magnitude of the change from what you have now is not enough to be worth bothering with?

[Sir Humphrey]

Certainly read your By-Laws. Potentially useful no matter what. 

If your By-Laws specify only a colour for the outward facing surface of a window treatment then you could go ahead with your blinds confident in the knowledge that you are doing the right thing, no matter what your neighbour’s interpretation of the by-laws might be. 

If your by-laws are ridiculously specific and narrow you might get involved to have them changed. For example, you should not be obliged to get (say) a particular style of white venetian blinds that might not even be available any more because the by-law was written before you could get (say) white cellular blinds that would provide both insulation and privacy. 

I do think consistent appearance can matter in some designs but what matters and what does not is very particular to the specific development/building.

In the ACT “an amendment to the rules of an owners corporation (ACT-speak for By-Laws) 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.”

I mention that last point so that people interested to lobby for improved strata legislation elsewhere will know what is possible. 

So, in the ACT, a rule specifying a consistent colour (say white) for window treatments would be OK and might be important for the aesthetics of the property, but a rule that prevented a unit owner from installing heavy, close-fitting curtains or cellular blinds that would provide better insulation would not be OK.

[Sir Humphrey]

Tell the parents in a matter of fact, non-judgemental way. They might be unaware of the ladder business or they may be all too aware and trying all they can. Be sympathetic. Just let them know you are concerned as a neighbour. They may appreciate it. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Another thought occurs to me. Does the Qld legislation have an explicit Code of Conduct for executive committee members? If so, it might provide an angle. If not, you might be able to use words from the ACT Code of Conduct to express how an EC member ought to behave anywhere, regardless of whether the local Act spells it out. The following from the ACT Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 Schedule 1 seem relevant:

4. Acting in owners corporation’s best interests
An executive member must act in the best interests of the owners corporation in exercising the member’s functions as an executive member, unless it is unlawful to do so.

7. Unconscionable conduct
An executive member must not engage in unconscionable conduct in exercising the member’s functions as an executive member.

Examples

1) improperly using the executive member’s position on the executive committee to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage personally or for someone else
2) exerting undue influence on, or using unfair tactics against, the owner of a unit in the units plan

8. Conflict of interest
An executive member must disclose to the executive committee any conflict of interest the member may have in a matter before the committee.

 

Note, I don’t think it would always be bad to pay an EC member a modest honararium in appreciation of the time they put in to meeting trades people on site, making calls and preparing material for the consideration of members, but $21K is over the top. 

[Sir Humphrey]

@JimmyT said:
…Complain.  … Stop complaining. …

So true! It happens alarmingly often that I only hear by chance from someone in the quiet majority about some issue that could have been easily fixed with very little bother if only they had told the EC about it. On the other hand, there are people we hear from far more often who really have nothing to be upset about but waste a lot of time (and sometimes money).

[Sir Humphrey]

@DaveB said:
It would be worthwhile to do a little arithmetic when notifying the other unit owners how much this service is costing them individually.  If all unit entitlements were equal, it would be $858 per lot, quite a substantial sum…

Even if the entitlements are not equal, it would be enough to note that the amount is ‘substantial, about $860 per unit on average’.

[Sir Humphrey]

And how did they arrive at such a specific number, $21,450? Do they show their working? Why not just a round $20K?

[Sir Humphrey]

I suggest you find an ally. There must be someone among 25 units. Together you can put a motion in opposition or at the least proof-read each others work after writing a statement in opposition to the motion. The strata manager should agree that a statement in opposition to the motion be included with the meeting papers along with (I would assume) the EC’s statement in support of the proposed budget that includes this particular expenditure item. 

As an aside, I do sometimes wonder what I might get paid for all the times it has been easier to organise something myself (I am treasurer) rather than try to explain it all to our managing agent, even though I am generally happy with their service. I am sure our OC would not agree to spending that much on any EC member or the chair or all of us on the EC, and we have a much larger OC.  Some ECs, even with a manager, do a lot of unpaid work, and sometimes I think an honorarium might be nice, but $21K does seem excessive.

[Sir Humphrey]

I would go with Jimmy T’s suggestion if you can. However, the bottom line is that this is a bit of common property that it sounds like you are getting an exclusive benefit from. It seems fair enough that you take responsibility for its maintenance and formalise the arrangement. Then it is unambiguous for all concerned. 

I wonder if the EC is concerned that there are many analogous, non-formalised arrangements where unit owners have paved or otherwise made use of adjacent bits of common property that are really of little use to anyone else but a real benefit to the individual unit?

We have such a situation in which every unit has their own style of path or driveway that connects to the shared paths and roadways. All were installed across short stretches of common property by unit owners in diverse styles. Long standing policy of almost 40 years has been that these are a unit owner’s responsibility but it has not been formalised. We are drafting a general meeting resolution to do that now. Our legal advice says we can make all of these exclusive use ‘special privileges’ (in the ACT) but that would then require an unopposed resolution to pass and someone is bound to get the wrong end of the stick and oppose. It would be a serious pain if had to install standardised paths to all units just to ensure some were up to scratch. 

I would prefer to use an ACT provision of our Act that allows the EC to approve a ‘minor use’ of common property subject to conditions (e.g. maintenance in a safe and attractive condition by the unit owner) when it would not interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property by other unit owners. The problem is uncertainty about how big a ‘minor’ use can get before it is no longer minor. I argue that it is dependent on context. If you have many hectares a few square meters can be minor. If you only have a few square meters of common property it would not be minor. Does NSW have a similar provision or do you need special by-laws for even the most trivial of incursions onto common property?

[Sir Humphrey]

I suggest you take some photos, make a clear diagram, or whatever else makes the situation easy to describe to someone who has never been there. What are the dimensions of the remaining space for turning? There are Australian Standards that describe how much turning space is required to get into a parking space. Reference to an objective standard could help since one persons very tight space is fine for someone else.

(We marked parking spaces at 2.6m in one parking area so we could accommodate 8 cars rather than the 7 that habitually parked there using 3m each. 2.6m wide exceeds the minimum in the standard. There were some grumbles but people seem to manage now.)

In the ACT an individual can apply to the tribunal for “a declaration … that a resolution of a general meeting or executive committee meeting is void for irregularity”

If the motion was not on an agenda distributed to all owners you would have a good case, or decided at a meeting for which insufficient notice was given, or the class of resolution was insufficient to grant an exclusive use (perhaps in NSW a by-law adopted by special resolution-fewer than 25% opposed I believe).  

Additionally or instead you could argue that use of that space by anyone as a parking space interferes with your reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property (I assume NSW by-laws use that formula or similar). The resolution above could be irregular for its inconsistency with the by-law. In this case your use and enjoyment of the common property would be the reasonable use of gaining access your garage.

[Sir Humphrey]

@JimmyT said:
…If the bike turned out to be a de-muffled Harley-Davidson…

When I am not being a strata guru or hifi nerd I am an electric vehicle enthusiast. So, I have to point out that I see nothing wrong with this de-muffled Harley: https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/we-ride-harleydavidsons-electric-livewire-20140909-10ecb7.html and https://projectlivewire.harley-davidson.com/en_AU

But, yes, I agree that permission could be given subject to the condition that it can be revoked if there are significant, substantial and repeated complaints of nuisance from bring the bike over common property. 

[Sir Humphrey]

We have a unit owner who rides his motor bike a short distance along a common property foot path before taking it down a short path into his private courtyard. He does this carefully at walking pace and I am not aware that any of his neighbours have a problem with it. 

The only issues I can think of would be if your bike rider were not so considerate and careful or if there would be a tendency to create an ugly worn track across the grassed area. Could the rider take a route that was entirely paved?

[Author]

Replies