Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@Bennifer said:
Whilst I am sure there are plenty of power hungry EC’s out there, there are also plenty that work tirelessly looking after buildings on behalf of ungrateful and sometimes abusive owners. … I have been on the EC for the past 5 years and have been trying to get off but there is no one that will step up and take on the role. Why would they when its a thankless, frustrating and relentlessly demanding position???
A few years ago, when our EC was getting much grief for doing the good things, our strata manager suggested we all just not stand. The consequence would be that every decision would require a general meeting and her fees would be higher. I’m sure she was not angling for a higher fee. She was just suggesting this is what it might take to make people wake up to the good work being done by the EC.
In the end we stayed on and achieved some good things and the whingers and nay-sayers have gradually lost credibility with the owners who previously listened to them.
At various times members of our EC have been happy to do all sorts of simple jobs (when we knew what was required) and sometime complex things when one of us had the skills or the motivation to find out what they needed to know. In this case, I agree with the comment that perhaps EC members were unaware that it was as simple as pressing a button to reset the foxtel box.
We have EC members happy to change light bulbs in our path lights, for example, but some others were not confident to do that. Generally we have always had someone happy to do it. However, not all such jobs have to be done by an EC member. Perhaps your OC has someone who is often available, perhaps retired or not working, who does not want to be on the EC but would be happy to be the designated person to look after the foxtel box and push the reset when necessary. I expect there are some other such minor jobs that might be shared around.
Peter C.
With only 12 owners, perhaps you can enlist enough of them to help do the work. Certainly, with so few owners, you should be able to talk to many of them face to face or phone them if non-resident.
Option 1 might be to do some work, buy some plants and do it at your own expense and effort. I would only do this if you have at least a few of those 12 owners on side and helping out with labour and the cost of some plants. Then you could probably not worry about the few who might be non-resident or not interested. Perhaps work on one corner initially rather than scaring people by suddenly appearing to take over everything.
Option 2 might be as above but formalised by finding enough other owners to call a general meeting and formally make a decision to spruce up the grounds and make a call on the general maintenance component that you probably have in the budget to get started. Perhaps there is a maintenance amount that is not being spent? Do you have an EC at all or was everything handed over to the agent?
Option 3 might be to wait for the next AGM and propose an increased amount in the budget for grounds maintenance and improvements.
@kiwipaul said:
Another advantage you have whilst the owners haven’t paid their dues is that they are unable to vote (at a committee meeeting or owners meeting AGM) untill the debt is cleared. So it might suit your purpose to keep quiet about this untill you have a meeting and then tell the chairperson to reject their vote. They can attend the meeting and have their say it’s just they cannot vote.This is a fundamental fact and it applies to most states and so any Strata Manager should be well aware of it.
While I agree with all that, I think it is a good practice to include a statement in the notice of any general meeting that only owners who are fully financial are eligible to vote.
Ditto to all that. You have an obligation to ensure that the insurance is paid and maintenance done. If levies have not been paid you have no choice but to take a loan. I am not so familiar with the NSW details but I expect there is a mechanism to not only charge interest for overdue levies but to charge the extra costs to the owners that have not paid. Even if there is not a mechanism, I would suggest writing to all owners:
Dear Unit Owner,
The EC has no option but to act responsibly and to comply with the Act to do the maintenance and renew insurance. Taking a loan is necessary because two owners have not paid their levies. We have engaged a strata debt collector to act on behalf of the owners corporation. Under section XXX of the Act those owners will be charged 10% interest until the levies are paid and other associated costs to the greatest extent possible.
Then a para reiterating how the previous manager was correctly terminated in accordance with legal advice.
Even though you are only 6 units, I think it is sometimes helpful be formal. If necessary, it will be proof that no owners had any excuse for not being on the same page. I would avoid naming names. Just state the number of units that have not paid and the consequences in firm but neutral, factual tone. The easiest common accusation people make when they really don’t have a leg to stand on is ‘poor communication’.
Dealing with this well should stand you in good stead for the future.
In the ACT the following is a pretty good summary:
There is also a code of practice for managers and another for EC in schedule 1 to the Act.
Just in case anyone from the ACT is reading and to inspire others to ask for the same for their jurisdictions when their Acts are up for review if you like what you see.
Peter
At the meeting you could propose some amendments. Amendments should be OK so long as they don’t negate the purpose of the motion (IE, you can’t have an amendment to insert the word ‘not’!). Minor and in the spirit of the motion is OK. So, move an amendment to put an upper limit on the cost (put a generous margin on top of an indicative quote you could get yourself). Move another amendment to make approval subject to the colour being made known to owners and no objection being received within some specified reasonable period.
If the EC are simply a bit snowed under and disorganised you won’t be holding up worthwhile maintenance but you will be imposing a little appropriate discipline.
@Jess said:
I am considering buying a unit but have become quite hesitant. I’m sure there can be lots of positives with downsizing my home and entering into strata, but i am sure there are negatives as well. I do not know many people who own and live in a strata unit and i would like to know the good, the bad, and the ugly from those who have experienced it before i make my decision.Where I live a lot of people, myself included, were renters in these townhouses before we looked out for a unit to buy. We therefore had a clearer idea what we were letting ourselves in for.
I agree it would be good to make sure the agent is telling people the correct information and reduce the chances of future arguments. When units change hands is a good time to have unapproved eye-sores removed, be clear about what is whose and so on. However, ultimately, the strata plan is what shows common property and the unit area. If a new owner was told the wrong thing it is they who have an argument with the agent or the lawyer who did the conveyancing.
Perhaps you can put the wind up people to get essential maintenance done by showing them what exposure to liability the entire OC might have if they don’t get it done. A one-pager ‘training note’ from Teys Lawyers could be helpful for this. They will send it to you on request, free. “Managing the risk of failing to repair and maintain common property” seems particularly relevant to your situation and it would be worth asking for others in the series. These sheets put the case clearly, briefly and bluntly citing a court case in which a unit owner was awarded damages of $150,000 because the OC failed to repair common property that resulted in damage to the unit and the OC faced a further $250,000 penalty if the OC did not get the repairs done within 3 months. Too bad if a unit owner did not have the cash to meet their share of the payment, they would have to sell or get a loan.
Print out a copy for everyone!
Peter C.
In the ACT I think you would be bound by the Uncollected Goods Act. I expect other states have an equivalent. That lets you give notice then dispose of items, retaining the funds in a trust fund for some period, deducting a reasonable amount for costs, which might be as much as the goods are worth in some cases. I found this out when finding out what to do about a car that seemed to be abandoned but was not reported as stolen. The police and motor registry could not give me details about the last registered owner. Eventually it disappeared of its own accord and perhaps it had been owned by a local who did not respond to our newsletter item.
You might be able to do some of the things you suggest if you have a bylaw about this. In your case it is more obviously stuff left by owners and their tenants so by laws apply to them. Perhaps it is worth proposing a bylaw that would prohibit the storage of stuff on common property without permission and allowing the OC to dispose of such stuff any way it sees fit after some period and after some reasonable notice of some sort.
Do others have such a bylaw?
If it is convenient, you might deal with the current batch of stuff this way although that will leave it there for a while longer as you call a meeting, pass the resolution, register the new bylaw etc.
BTW. It is a requirement of the Act in the ACT that the EC complies with the Code of Conduct included the Act. The Code includes that an EC member must declare any conflict of interest on any matter before the EC. It does not say what happens then but the Act requires that minutes be kept. These would be the evidence that the conflict of interest was declared and how it was then handled.
@tracer said:
Should we have some form of integrity audits? Or would it be just another layer of fairly mindless bureaucracy?
How would you audit integrity? I’m sure an auditor could find a few owners who have a low opinion of me though happily quite a few others have said nice appreciative things too. I expect it would be an expensive and petty bureaucratic check on mechanical process rather than addressing or uncovering anything serious.
The Act in the ACT specifies the penalties if the EC fails to do various things such as reporting on insurance to the AGM, keeping various records etc. The ACT Act contains a Code of Conduct for ECs. If an owner could demonstrate that a member of the EC or the EC as a whole had contravened that code they would have grounds to go to the ACAT (our local tribunal) to demonstrate that the EC had acted contrary to the interests of the OC, created a nuisance, failed to comply with the Act, failed to declare a conflict of interest in any matter before the committee, engaged in unconscionable conduct or any of the various other things listed.
Hmm. Should I have refused or somehow declared the nice bottle of wine a neighbour gave me at Christmas time along with a comment of appreciation for all the hard work I do around here?
@Whale said:
Thanks for the responses to date, and as an update….…I’ve also discussed the provisions of … with the local Police…
Good idea. With the right local police it could be very helpful to you in the long term to be seen to have worked cooperatively with them to solve the problem.
@JimmyT said:
…By the way, I am revising my thoughts about secrecy. I reckon if your point is important enough, you should man (or woman) up and take any brickbats or bouquets that may be coming your way. Otherwise it undermines your credibility, apart from anything else.I agree. Anonymous notes in letter boxes tend to be inflammatory in my experience. Anonymity removes a pressure to be scrupulously fair and accurate in the contents of the communication. Being fair gets respect and good results eventually. Backing off just to keep the peace can make things more comfortable in the short term but stores up problems for later and trains the noisy minority of bullies that they can get away with being selfish at the expense of the quiet majority who would rather not stick their necks out.