Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
So in my scheme, 61% is owned by one family under different company names or SMSFs where trustees of SMSFs are their various companies.
The ultimate beneficial owner is now old and frail (so their story goes) and his adult children have POA over all his finances.
Does this change assist me in the sense this family now have less voting power?
A lot of manipulation goes on with AVOs, with people pretending to misunderstand what is written in black and white.
On the other hand, the courts have been known to issue dysfunctional orders written by malicious applicants.
The defendant should apply to the court to vary the order. They should ask that it be specified that electronic rooms do not apply to the order if the order actually says that the defendant is excluded from being in certain physical proximity of the protected person.
You do not need to waste money on a legal representative to make an application to vary.
We have one family who owns about 61%, another family 5.5%, and combined they are 66.67% and the remaining owners are 33.23%.
Like your situation, they limit number of committee members so no one else can get on committee. The legislation permits this though.
The remaining owners at 33% have all the power they need, but are useless.
So the families rule the roost and bully everyone, so they’ll sell up.
I think the legislation permits this.
The future is build-to-rent and strata, the failure that is, will be phased out.
Thank you for this excellent article.
It hits the nail on the head.
Owners and tenants flee and professionals do not want to provide services to such buildings, bringing down the value of the schemes.
The wrong people get blamed for the problem, because the root cause of intimidation and nuisance caused by disadvantaged people is very difficult to fix.
Home owners are self-interested economic actors, not service providers. Successful policy treats them as such.
Strata schemes always have power imbalances, and nuisance and intimidation is leveraged by the powerful to harass the weak.
You will see from my posts in here that I had this problem. Not anymore – this year 20 tenants were asked to move out and their units renovated, attracting a different clientele!
Over the last year NCAT appointed Compulsory Strata Managers because:
- the OC is not performing a required function, for example, maintaining common property, where this is required
- the OC is exercising its powers or making decisions for an improper purpose with negative consequences for lot owners. This could be where the OC, or strata committee, allows conduct contrary to strata legislation, or without having the necessary by-laws, particularly where this oppresses other lot owners
- the OC is failing to exercise a power or make a decision to stop lot owners from contravening their obligations under strata legislation, such as lot owners using common property without a common property by-law; or
- the OC unnecessarily raises levies or spends money where this is not in the interests of the scheme or lot owners.
Source: HOLDING REDLICH
I talked to a Fair Trading mediator today and clarified that
1) removal of a committee member only lasts up until the next election, they can then get voted back in.
2) policy is being considered at Fair Trading to remove Committee members for longer so they can’t just walk back in. I suppose this would be a 3 year ban or something?
The Local Court is not interested in the bullying that occurs in property and planning either.
They poo-pooed my AVO application against a bullying tenant who was doing it on behalf of the dominant owners – family with 61% UE. They said I was exaggerating.
Would NCAT be interested in bullying if the motions and minutes had evidence of it?