[Sir Humphrey]

In what respect are the ‘EC being difficult’? The EC would have a lot more direct dealings with the manager. What is their experience? Since management responsibility lies with the EC (who engage a manager to help), why not talk to them about your previous poor experience with this particular manager?

[Sir Humphrey]

Following is a bit of a rant/grumble which may well not apply to your case, so please don’t take offence. I mean it more as a general comment from an EC member who has seen such comments frequently. You have just provided one example:

As someone who has been on the other side of this sort of thing I find myself wondering about whether there might be more to this. It all sounds rather familiar. I have been on an EC that proposed or is proposing changes to landscaping, a solar project and rules (bylaw) changes. The EC did all the leg work ourselves so the managing agent would not have known a great deal of detail. Frankly it was frustrating to provide quite a bit of information, repeatedly, and to still have people complain that we had failed to communicate. The trouble was that some people can’t be bothered to read material sent to them, won’t talk to us, but are quick to say we don’t communicate. Other times we have called meetings so that people can hear and discuss and debate etc. and we get a complaint at that meeting that we are not consulting, all while failing to grasp that the point of the meeting is to hear the proposal, ideas and reactions. 

It seems the only consultation that is sufficient for some people is for EC members to knock on every door for one on one conversations, which is not easy with over 100 units. 

You say that plans for the landscaping work were distributed with the meeting notice along with the cost. That does not sound so bad. Perhaps the EC does have quotes but didn’t give them to the manager? Perhaps the EC has not got formal quotes because it does not know if there is support to do the work but has made sufficient enquiries to be confident that $70K would be ample? A vote at the meeting might be approval to go ahead with works up to a certain cost? Perhaps in discussion they expect to have at the meeting it will become obvious that they have developed a good plan with a clear idea about likely costs? Perhaps the EC expects that it is obvious, especially with only 30 units, that anyone with questions before the meeting could just ask them, and did not think it necessary to point this out? Presumably they don’t live far away. We have had owners distribute letters to all other owners accusing the EC of all sorts of dodginess that was undeserved but they would not just come and talk to us to explain their concerns or just ask more about the various proposals. 

Before distributing letters to all owners I suggest you talk directly to your neighbours, especially the EC members. Especially in smaller complexes talking can’t be too hard. If talking still leaves you with misgivings about the proposals, then write to all owners, or better still talk to them.

[Sir Humphrey]

@sbadert said:

@considerate band fair said:
In reply to PeterC, If that is the case then perhaps signs could be looked at on application and a temporary approval given? Perhaps rent for use of CP? Might as well get some dollars in the coffers if the site is not too offensive to other owners?

Having said that we do not allow for sale signs on our property.

Cheers

CBF

Our EC is considering banning or limiting For Sale signs on common property. Any opinions on the legality of setting a fee payable to the EC for such signs (in NSW) as well as restricting their location ?

 

In the ACT (so perhaps similar elsewhere), the Act allows the EC to give permission for ‘minor’ uses of the common property where that would not ‘unreasonably interfere with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property’ by other owners. So, I would think the EC could grant permission for signs to be placed in a way that they judge to ‘not unreasonably interfere’ etc. I think the EC could specify where the sign goes and that it only be permitted to remain for a limited period and so on. I would argue that a sign that is up and looking ugly for only a few weeks and doesn’t get in anyone’s way is only a minor and not unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of the common property. On the other hand the EC would exceed its powers to give permission for a sign that gets in the way and is left up for an extended time.

I would not bother with fees. In the long term, every owner will benefit once from this particular use of common property at the time they sell. 

[Sir Humphrey]

It is not normal to have continued special levies. Nearly all the time one would expect to have only the expected expenses and they should be covered in a budget approved each year at the AGM. 

I would have expected that insurance was an item in the admin fund budget approved at the previous AGM. The only reasons for a special levy that I can think of would be:

-if the amount budgetted was not nearly enough if premiums rose unexpectedly or a property valuation meant that you discovered you had been under-insured.

-something else went over-budget and now there is an insurance bill to pay without enough in the bank

-everything is on budget except that some have not paid levies and consequently there is insufficient in the bank. 

You should have a copy of the budget from the papers of the last AGM. If not request a copy from the strata manager or treasurer. If insurance is not budgetted as a normal recurrent admin fund expense ask why not. If insurance is budgetted ask why the budgetted amount has not been enough. There might be a reasonable explanation. If you have a problem with lots of owners in arrears ask how that is being managed. It is possible to have an orderly process for debt collection. 

Ask before the meeting. I would not immediately suspect or suggest any fraud. Stuff up is more likely and that is less likely than a minor issue not well explained. Talk to the EC. They are owners just like you, perhaps struggling with a job they didn’t really want or without sufficient support from a strata manager.

[Sir Humphrey]

In the ACT there is a minimum of 2 people. From the Act (doesn’t copy and paste well with the numbering in the right place):

If a standard quorum is not present within 1⁄2 an hour after the motion arises for consideration, a reduced quorum for the motion and any subsequent motion considered at the meeting is made up by 2 or more people present at the meeting who are entitled to vote on the motion. 

If a reduced quorum is not present 1⁄2 an hour after the motion arises for consideration, the meeting is adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same place and time. 

If a reduced quorum is present for the consideration of any motion and the motion is voted on, section 3.10 (Notice of reduced quorum decisions and adjournments) applies to the decision on the motion. 

If a reduced quorum is present for the consideration of any motion and the motion is not voted on, the meeting may decide to adjourn to the same day in the next week at the same place and time to consider the motion (and any others remaining to be considered).

If a general meeting is adjourned under this section (including paragraph and a standard quorum is not present within 1⁄2 an hour after a motion arises for consideration at the adjourned meeting—

a reduced quorum is made up by the people who are then present and entitled to vote on the motion and any subsequent motion considered at the adjourned meeting; and

if a reduced quorum is present for the consideration of any motion at the adjourned meeting, and the motion is voted on— the decision on the motion must be notified under section 3.10; and

if the motion (or any other) is not voted on at the adjourned meeting—the adjourned meeting may resolve to adjourn again to the same day in the next week at the same place and time to consider the resolution (and any others remaining to be considered at the meeting). 

If a decision (a reduced quorum decision) is made on a motion while a reduced quorum was present for the consideration of the motion, within 7 days after the meeting the owners corporation must give each person mentioned in section 3.6 (1) (Notice of general meetings) written notice of the reduced quorum decision.

Note If a form is approved under s 146 for a notice, the form must be used.

Within 4 days after a general meeting is adjourned under section3.9, the owners corporation must give each person mentioned in section 3.6 (1) a written notice of the date, place and time to which the meeting is adjourned.

Reduced quorum decisions—effect

A reduced quorum decision takes effect 28 days after the decision was made, subject to this section.

Subsection (1) does not apply if the owners corporation fails to give notice of the reduced quorum decision under section 3.10 (1).

A reduced quorum decision is disallowed if, within 28 days after the decision was made, the owners corporation is given a petition requiring that the decision be disallowed signed by a majority of people entitled to vote on the relevant motion at the time of signing (whether or not they were present or entitled to vote on the motion at the general meeting at which the decision was made).

If, within 28 days after a reduced quorum decision is made, a motion is passed confirming the reduced quorum decision while a standard quorum is present at a general meeting for consideration of the confirmation motion, the reduced quorum decision takes effect on confirmation, whether or not a petition under subsection (3) is at any time given to the owners corporation. 

This section does not prevent a reduced quorum decision from being revoked at a general meeting, whether a standard quorum or reduced quorum is present while the revocation motion is being considered. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Yet another option might be to get to know your neighbours. You might find after a while that one of your neighbours is happy to let you park in their unused space whenever you care to with or without accepting your offer of rent. 

I assume you have have parking on site that is perhaps uncovered or not allocated to any particular unit. It might be possible to propose a scheme whereby those spaces are covered at the expense of unit owners who get to have that space allocated to their unit. This could be done well to everyone’s benefit or it could be done badly and backfire. If such a scheme seems feasible do it with legal advice.

 

[Sir Humphrey]

A simple option would be to put a note in each letter box asking if anyone would be interested to sell. Obviously that only gets to the resident owners but it is harmless and a start.

[BTW. I can understand the reluctance of the executive committee to hand over the strata roll with everybody’s contact details even though there is an argument that you are entitled to inspect it. We have had owners intent on mischief that I would not like to give the strata roll to. When they wanted to inform owners about the dastardly activities of the EC we said they could do so by providing their material to the managing agent to mail out.]

So, I suggest you provide a letter that you would like to have sent to all owners and offer to pay the costs of having the strata manager mail it out to all owners (or just the non-resident owners if you have done the letter box drop already). The strata manager and EC should be able to see your letter is innocent and innocuous. It would be much easier to request that once you are actually an owner, not just a prospective owner. IE a member of the club rather than someone from outside the club wanting to advertise.

Where I am it is not unusual for people to ask around to see who has a spare carport space that might be rented. Sale is not an option in our case because they are linked to the units’ title. I rented my neighbour’s second parking space for a year while I working to get one car drivable before then selling the other car. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Sounds like NSW could do with the ACT’s ‘reduced quorum’ concept!

Here a quorum is 50% with much the same caveats about being financial etc. However, a much smaller number can decide to proceed with a meeting after half an hour if there is not yet a quorum. Then any decisions do not become effective for 28 days and the decisions must be notified to all owners within 7 days with prescribed notice of reduced quorum decisions form. The decisions can be overturned by a new general meeting or by a petition of 50% of owners. 

All that means you can get on with the general meeting without a quorum but there are safeguards against a poorly attended meeting making crazy decisions. 

[Sir Humphrey]

A decision about common property is properly made by the owners corporation. You could propose that units owners be able to choose tiles for the balconies associated with their units with a price adjustment if their selection is more expensive. The owners at a general meeting might support your proposal or not. I would talk to an EC member about how it might be practically arranged without lumbering someone else with a lot of work. If you have EC support for a reasonable proposal I would expect a general meeting to support the idea. 

In all this I am assuming that the tiles of a balcony are only visible from within the attached unit. If the tiles are visible more generally there might be a compelling argument for a consistent appearance to the building.

[Sir Humphrey]

It is a long time since I have bought tiles so I have no idea if your tile choice is cheap or expensive. Perhaps, if a particular tile of a particular cost per m2 is chosen for all the balconies, unit owners could be given the option to substitute a different choice if they pay the difference in price. To avoid it becoming a big job for the manager or EC, those wanting a different choice could be asked to source and provide the tiles and be reimbursed the lesser cost of the standard choice. Alternatively, unit owners could be restricted to making a choice from a particular shop which then collates the bulk order and tabulates the extra charge to be billed to unit owners for non-standard choices.

It is probably a big enough job for someone on the EC as it is so I could sympathise if they are resisting what could turn into an exercise in herding cats. I suggest making it very easy for them if you would like choice. 

 

[Sir Humphrey]

Regardless of the strata manager’s motives, it is probably a good thing that the EC is aware that an owner is dissatisfied with the some aspect of the strata manager’s performance. I would discuss the matter directly with the EC. Face to face discussions are best if possible. 

[Sir Humphrey]

I’m not sure that feeding wild birds is such a great idea but not really a strata matter unless perhaps the cockies are screeching at unpleasant hours. 

As for playing on the grass, I’d say that putting up a notice to prohibit that might be interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property (or similar wording you probably have as a by-law). I’d quote the by-law to the EC person and point out their sign would be a breach. Unless of course there were some short-term good reason such as having just reseeded the lawn so they wanted people to stay off for a short time. 

[Sir Humphrey]

Does the door have an automatic closer? Would changing it for a better damped closer fix the problem? What about some rubber strips in the door jamb? I would think the OC could reasonably spend a little money on this as maintenance. Changing behaviour is hard work by comparison. 

[Sir Humphrey]

So does the QLD legislation list the things that are OK or does it just give some examples? I would have thought a very good case could be made that a clothes line is sustainability equipment. IE it is a solar powered clothes dryer that is more sustainable than an electric dryer, just like a solar water heater is more sustainable than a straight electric water heater. In the ACT a clothes line is given as an explicit example.

I would have thought that the OC might only be able to ban the use of a solar clothes dryer on a balcony if it provided a practical alternative place to put one.

The ACT (following my suggestion in a submission to the Unit Titles Act review) has the following (slightly condensed quote):

S.108 (3)d. An amendment to the Rules 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.

…

Sustainability infrastructure, installed in relation to a units plan—

(a) means infrastructure and equipment that—

(i) improves the environmental sustainability of the units; or

(ii) reduces the environmental impact of the owners corporation and the unit owners; and

(b) includes related utility service connections and equipment.

Examples—solar panels, clothes lines, rainwater tanks.

[Sir Humphrey]

I thought QLD had ‘ban the banners’ legislation that renders invalid any bylaw to the extent that it prevents sustainability measures. As I understand it, requiring people to use dryers would not be valid. Requiring people to use a clothesline one way rather than another might be OK. As I mentioned somewhere below, a clothesline is the most cost effective bit of solar equipment you could ever get. 

[Author]

Replies