Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If there were an exclusive use grant made to a former owner of the unit to use the attic space, it would be worth checking some details even so. In the ACT, a ‘special privilege’ for exclusive use of an area of common property can only be made to a unit owner. Unless it is carefully worded, it is only to the particular named unit owner at the time. When our OC granted special privileges over parking spaces on common property, our legal advice was to grant the spaces to ‘the owner of unit X for the time being’ so that it would, in effect, be linked to the unit as it changed hands. Note, the phrase ‘for the time being’ got us into trouble because some owners refused to accept the legal advice that it meant ‘at any time’, the opposite of the colloquial meaning, ‘temporary’. In the end we had to change it to ‘at any time’ just to get the motion passed.
If the balustrades are common property, as they appear to be, and the OC decided to only upgrade some to current standard (where the adjacent unit owner wanted it and paid for it), and someone fell off a non-upgraded balcony, wouldn’t it be easy to make a case that the OC had been negligent? It would be hard to make the case that the OC was unaware of the issue.
If, say, a motion to upgrade all balconies had majority support but there were not 75% in favour, and there were legal advice to the OC that it should upgrade all to avoid liability, then I would say the EC should go to the Tribunal seeking an order to give effect to the failed motion. In such circumstances it could be reasonably secure in claiming it was acting to reflect a majority view and in accordance with appropriate legal advice. In the ACT, our Tribunal has powers to ‘give effect’ to a failed motion such as this if it would be ‘reasonable’ for it to have passed. Do other state tribunals have such powers?
In the ACT certain classes of motion require an unopposed resolution. Our OC has had small minorities (sometimes as few as one person out of >100 owners) oppose such motions even though they would suffer no loss or inconvenience whatsoever. They simply had the ‘wrong end of the stick’ about what the point of the motion was and would not be dissuaded from their misconceived opposition. In such cases the ACT Tribunal ‘gave effect’ to the failed motions.
Generally, you are not required to bring a building (or playground or whatever) up to current standards but 1) you are required to maintain it to continue to comply with the standards that applied at the time of construction and 2) if you change anything substantial, the new bit has to meet current standards.
Generally, your insurer will have these requirements as well as any authority giving a development approval. That said, if something is clearly below current standards, it might be reasonable to make improvements to meet the current standard. Some deficiencies relative to current standards are pretty minor and the risk to safety can be judged to be small. Other deficiencies really ought to be brought up to standard, especially if the risk is substantial and the cost to remedy is not large.
I would think it would be hard to argue that someone should be prevented from bringing their railing up to a recognised current safety standard but it is similarly not reasonable to require it of everyone.
I think the other thing you will need to do as an EC is to look after each other, especially the person being chair. Knowledge is power and make sure you have an informed, reasoned case for anything you want to do. Communication with the manager is important too. Set up a clear channel for that. The manager won’t like someone who arrogantly tells them their job and you will get support if you are respectful to the manager.
Time to stand up to the ‘resident bully’. If he is elected chair it will just encourage him and give apparent legitimacy and endorsement. Find someone else who can be press-ganged to do it. Reassure them that they are unlikely to have to do anything because the manager has all the functions delegated so they are really only there as insurance against the bully. Also remember, even when all functions are delegated to a manager it is still possible for the EC to exercise any of those functions when it wants to. Obviously communicate well with the manager but you can exercise the powers of the EC anytime if you feel you need to.
If nothing has yet happened, the EC could change its decision in the light of being made aware of the by-laws.
With only 8 owners, can you and another EC member simply walk around to each owner and explain the difficulty of getting a response from the managing agent and directly ask if they have paid their levies.
I am treasurer of an OC with 105 townhouses. I can log onto the managing agent’s system at any time (with a password) and see all account payments and the state of levy payments, where the budget is at and our overall account balances. We are paying a bit more than you per month for the strata manager but we are 105, not 8.
I think you should be jumping up and down rather more to know who is in arrears or where the money went if no-one is in arrears. If unit owners in arrears are preventing maintenance work from proceeding you need to get heavy with them. Start out nice at first but don’t dally too long at that stage.
It should be possible to find out whether the shortfall is due to any unit owner not paying their ordinary levies. If the manager will not explain to your executive committee why the accounts are as they are, then you have a serious problem. If the treasurer can’t give an account of it, then he/she should be demanding it of the manager. If everyone has paid the special levy but some have not paid the ordinary levies this might be a simple explanation, but why would the manager not just say that?
So, it was once. Only once and there has been an apology. I’d leave it there. If it happened again, there might be a pattern emerging. If it happened yet again, some serious discussions need to be had.
Which state is this in? In the ACT, and I think some other states, a unit owner may only allow an animal to be kept with the owners corporation’s consent but that is balanced by an obligation on the OC that consent must not be unreasonably withheld. Bylaws/rules/articles can only have effect in such circumstance if they are consistent with the Act. EG. It might be reasonable to exclude unusually large exotic or dangerous animals or more than some number of animals. It would not be reasonable to have a no pets policy. It might be reasonable to require animals to be confined to the unit area and only allowed on common property under the supervision and control of a responsible person.
@JimmyT said:
@kiwipaul said:
Their is no casting vote each vote carries the same entitlement in committee. If a committee decision is 3 votes all the motion is lost and it doesn’t matter how the Chair voted.As Whale has pointed out below, this is not the case in Victoria where the Chair DOES have a casting vote.
Ditto in the ACT, the chair has a casting vote in both EC meetings and general meetings.
Meanwhile, your chair is only one of the EC. Can’t the rest of the EC out-vote the chair and resolve to act on maintenance issues?
https://www.acat.act.gov.au/judgment/view/8221/title/nolan-anor-v-owners
might be of interest. Discussion of what is and is not a structural alteration with particular reference to flooring. In the ACT but referencing decisions elsewhere.
Wait for a moment or two after the noise stops and then applaud loudly or play a recording of applause on your hifi gear?
I’d add a note of caution: the advice is state-specific. In the ACT the only way to get money out of the sinking fund is to spend it in accordance with the sinking fund plan, which can be amended by ordinary resolution so not that hard to do just before resolving to spend. Still it has to be on one of the things that a sinking fund can be used for. You can not transfer to the admin fund. Transfers are a one-way street here.
However, you can as suggested below. The AGM can resolve to levy more for the admin fund and less for the sinking fund which amounts to the same thing. We just did the same thing the other way around since we had a surplus from last year in the admin fund but had a new expense to cover in the sinking fund.