Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Yes I take your point, there could be confusion. Ideally the notice of meeting should specify the rules that apply to proxies – for a smaller scheme I don’t see what issue there may be with someone providing a proxy at the meeting – but as I say it should be clear from the outset. Our scheme of 9 has always accepted proxies at the meeting.
Have a look at the NSW Fair Trading template proxy form.
Note 1 to the template says:
- This form is ineffective unless it contains the date on which it was made and it is given to the secretary of the owners corporation at least 24 hours before the first meeting in relation to which it is to operate (in the case of a large strata scheme) or at or before the first meeting in relation to which it is to operate (in any other case).
You can give a valid signed proxy form to the Secretary at the meeting (unless it is the first meeting of the scheme). So if you are present then that is an option.
No I don’t but there have been cases considering NCAT’s power to remove a Committee member and the relevant considerations including conflict of interest:
If you read the linked case, it refers to a number of other cases including Linney and Lockrey v Rosewall
The Managing Agent exercises all the functions of the Committee and office-bearers so effectively the Committee has been dismissed/dissolved. Once the period ends the owners can elect a Committee at the AGM, nobody is prevented from being on the Committee or holding office.
The extra information doesn’t change my response, but note I am not familiar with ACT requirements.
In relation to (iv), the owner might benefit from the decision, but the key element of the decision is the actual renovation, not who is doing the renovation, so there is no reason why that party shouldn’t participate in the decision. The financial benefit is a consequence of the primary decision, it is not the primary decision. Note the scheme is not paying for the works to be done.
Conflicts of interest can be confusing, people often toss the idea around without clearly identifying whether there is an issue, they just think there is. The key issue is usually in respect of a Committee member, where a personal interest may compromise their discharge of duties as a Committee member – the classic example being where the Committee is voting on engaging a provider and a member may have an interest in one of the candidates, or even be one of the candidates.
Anyway.
(i) Answer – NO. Yes they have an interest in the proposed renovation, but if you extend that you can say any owner has an interest in most stuff to do with the scheme?
(ii) Answer – YES they should be able to vote. Note in a lot of conflict of interest scenarios the relevant person is allowed to vote when they declare their interest.
(iii) Answer – NO this is not a conflict. This is different from the owner with an interest voting on the selection of a candidate to be engaged – they may benefit from the renovation going ahead, but that doesn’t mean it is a conflict, the key issue here is the actual renovation, not the party doing it, i.e. the owners are not voting on who is to do the renovations?
(iv) Why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote?
I don’t know what the answer to this is – in our scheme of 9 lots, there is not a single person other than me who has the faintest idea how Strata law works, or anything about the framework generally. 2 of the owners on the Committee have been owners for more than 30 years. They are very good at complaining.
So that leaves me and the strata manager. At the AGM recently I was abused for an extended period of time by one of those owners, for having the nerve to progress fixing a few things, all of which she had voted for. She then accused me of a conflict of interest and said I shouldn’t be allowed to vote on any matters. I am not sure how much more I can take.
I think even if you had a training requirement it would be dumbed down, and people like my neighbours would just tick the box and continue on their merry way.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for an owner to be absent and not leave their keys with anyone. I do not believe it is common practice for people to leave keys when they go away, on the off chance there will be an emergency in their apartment building necessitating access to their property. So that is irrelevant to the question of who is responsible for repairs.
The door is common property – if the OC had to damage it to gain access the OC should repair the door. I had first hand experience of this many years ago, when there was a flood in my apartment, and the fire brigade had to break the door down. The OC paid for the door and the splintered doorframe to be fixed.
You are doing the work so you should take responsibility for that work.
The OC has no control over it – look at it this way – you could renovate the bathroom including waterproofing, the job is really bad. At a point in time in a few years it is necessary to rip out the bathroom and fix the waterproofing – if the OC were responsible for it, then in theory they would also be responsible for replacing the entire bathroom. I don’t think so.
It is not clear to me why a time limit has been specified for the responsibility being on the owner. If it were me, the responsibility would rest with the owner in perpetuity.
The thing is, you’re not an owner, so you can’t be included on the roll . Perhaps you could look at an enduring power of attorney.
I’m not sure what steps you have taken to determine the ABN. If you had a contract with the developer, then they would have to have an ABN. If they didn’t they weren’t/aren’t complying with the law.
Go to the ABN Lookup site and search for it there.https://abr.business.gov.au
It sounds to me like the owner wants to do some fairly major works, which include changes to the common property, and likely also taking over common property. That is very complex and if it did go to the owners for approval there is a wide range of issues that would have to be dealt with, which could include things like the owner paying the OC for taking over common property, allocation of liability, indemnities etc.
There is nothing wrong with sounding out the Committee about their likely position on something like that, but if the works involve changes to and/or taking over common property, then the Committee doesn’t have the power to approve those works.
What you could say to the owner is they should provide an overview document setting out what they want to do as a starting point – that is the beginning of the process. The Committee is not in a position to approve anything at this stage. I know a building where a lot owner did something similar, and it took a long time for him to obtain approval, i.e. a couple of years.
Well yes – this is not legal advice but I believe kh has a very good case against their neighbour in nuisance. The location of the bees is interfering with kh’s enjoyment of their property. In this case I think it is pretty obvious.
So 2 ways of dealing with it:
- approach the Association governing body with what you have outlined, and tell them that your neighbour is interfering with your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
- get a lawyer to write a letter – ultimately if they don’t do anything you could sue them
I am surprised the Council won’t help, I thought there were regulations about beekeeping on private property but apparently not.
If a person obtains privileged documents by improper means, e.g. by getting another owner to pass them on, you can likely get an injunction to prevent them using those documents.
Anyone who did that would be pretty silly.
Back to the original question – yes the owners have the right to see the legal advice, unless it is privileged in respect of those owners.
To answer the question – a nomination for election to the Committee can be provided either before the AGM, or at the AGM, provided it is valid. You don’t need to include it in the AGM agenda.