[gazelle]

gazelle wrote:

I’ll be calling the Director/Senior Strata Manager of our strata management company tomorrow to see if he’s of the same opinion.

Just to close this off. I spoke to the Director of my strata management company today, who is also a senior strata manager, and asked him if he agreed with the comments made by our/his strata manager in our recent EGM.

He agreed that HBC cover is required for any building/trades work above $20K, including painting. I already knew that care of these two links:

https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/trades-and-businesses/licensing-and-qualifications/painting

Find a Painter or Consultant

But on my other two questions (co-owner self-nomination for strata committee & Section 108 applicable for changing building colour scheme), he also stated that they were open to interpretation. He said that he’d spoken to solicitors about this in the past and that it’s a grey area. I told him that he should find some better lawyers.

Specifically on the co-owner self-nomination, he stated that the term “co-owner” isn’t even defined in the strata legislation and that there could be differences in the interpretation between joint owners and tenants in common, etc.

Now I’m no legal eagle, but my simplistic view is that if there is more than one name on the title, you’re co-owners, as opposed to a single owner.

I did some searching and sure enough, “co-owner” doesn’t appear to be defined in the strata legislation but it is defined here:

CONVEYANCING ACT 1919 – SECT 66F

66F Definitions
In this Division–

(1) “Co-ownership” means ownership whether at law or in equity in possession by two or more persons as joint tenants or as tenants in common; and
“co-owner” has a corresponding meaning and includes an incumbrancer of the interest of a joint tenant or tenant in common.

I presume that’s the relevant definition but happy to be educated if it’s not.

 

[gazelle]

Sir Humphrey wrote:

Do you have anything from 1971 that was specific to your site?

Thanks for your response Sir Humphrey. We don’t appear to have any site specific by-laws. They all look pretty standard except for this one:

“That the decision of the officers in the council would be executed only if unanimous, if they were not unanimous, and Extraordinary General Meeting would be held to resolve the matter“.

Having looked back at some historical SCM notices, I can see that this by-rule has not been honoured.

That by-law could come in handy if you have a problem with a bad strata committee but one voice of reason. Although it defeats the purpose of the strata committee as too much stuff could potentially get kicked back to the owners corporation.

[gazelle]

spmanager wrote:

Hi Gazelle sounds like the meeting was fun.

The manager is probably being practical (depending on the history of the building). All they had to do was ask does anyone want to nominate the co-owner. Lots of Stratas’ do that. Unless there is an issue with the person going on the committee, these one’s are usually let through so meeting don’t take hours.

I understand your point and normally I wouldn’t be so pedantic. But in this case, the committee wasn’t functioning well and one committee officer was causing most of the problems. I put forward a motion to vacate his office but because it requires a special resolution, I knew that I wouldn’t have the numbers because the other 2 committee members would back him up.

That’s why I challenged the co-owner nominations. Because that’s the only way that I was going to get rid of them and force a new election. It might be pedantic but it’s the law.

To your point about the strata manager asking somebody else to nominate the co-owner. That’s true. But that then has an impact because if a different owner nominates the co-owner, that owner can’t nominate themselves or someone else (is that the case?). Which in turn has an impact on the available nominations.

While the committee can do it. it could be an issue with owners. Remember all committee meeting agendas and minutes go out to owners and 25% of owners can block the committee from resolving any issue.

I agree with you. But in this case, the strata manager didn’t send the SCM meeting notice to the owners corporation. Another stuff up by the strata manager. They held the SCM one day and the painting started the very next day, without any notice to the owners or tenants.

I used the 25% rule to make a “qualified request” for an EGM, but by the time the notice period passed, the damage had already been done. Now we’re stuck with a dodgy paint job and the owners don’t like the new colour scheme.

 

[Author]

Replies