Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You don’t, they’re not your employees.
Tell them to cancel the policy and refund you both lots of money immediately.
No you can’t proceed. Call a face to face meeting, that way they have to vote.
Perhaps try and leave gender out of it.
I suggest you give the full scope to the strata manager, they can advise as to whether the works come under section 109 or 110.
Section 31, refer in particular section 31(1)(d).
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma2015242/s31.html
The best way to find out is to ask the insurance company – if a 14 year old is driving a vehicle on the common property and smashes into something will you pay for the damage?
You can then give their response to the landlord of the tenant and demand he take appropriate action.
Yes it should, assuming they have insurance. It is surprising how many people do not.
I suggest you put it in the hands of your insurers who should then claim from their insurers (if they are insured).
The only other question is whether the floor is common property – have you checked that?
Kenuppa – are you in Queensland? If so I am not in a position to answer that question. It is my understanding amendments were made to the Building Act in that jurisdiction to allow for installation of solar panels – the Committee can impose conditions.
Have a look here.
In NSW you would be granting exclusive use of the relevant area so that the panel could be installed, usually you would look at a by-law that includes provisions relating to the owner taking responsibility.
In that case there is no time limit (unless the by-law says that there is), an exclusive use by-law runs with the property.
The simple answer is no.
A lease of common property requires a special resolution of the owners at a general meeting, the Committee does not have the power to approve a lease of common property.
If the owners approve it, the lease must be lodged with the Registrar General. Note that a term exceeding 5 years requires a plan of subdivision, and according to the Land Registry website is not acceptable.
Essentially, you can’t use a lease to get around the requirements of the Act. After the period of the lease anything on the common property would have to go.
That’s the problem. In the case cited by alfredo you need a strong Chair who advises that the partner and siblings are not owners, and therefore have no right to attend the meeting and should leave. The meeting is a meeting of owners, not owners and their entourage.
In the case where a proxy is appointed, it may be reasonable to allow both the owner and the proxy to attend, but in that case the owner should nominate who is going to speak at the meeting and stick to that.
We had a meeting some time ago where an owner wanted to bring their lawyer – we advised that they could, but the lawyer could not speak, unless they were appointed as a proxy.
Note that for companies, if you are a member/shareholder, that gives the right to attend, speak and vote at general meetings – the provisions are very specific. For some companies limited by guarantee, members of different classes only have the right to attend a meeting, and not to speak or vote.
Essentially you should not have multiple bites of the cherry, and use that to bully the other owners.
An owner can nominate any person to be a member of the Committee, provided they are not standing for election also. Then it is a matter of whether the person is elected.
The AGM or any other general meeting is a meeting of the owners, it is not a meeting of the Committee. So if an owner wanted a son or daughter to attend a GM on their behalf, they would have to give them a proxy for that meeting.
I am very puzzled by this – the builders are responsible to maintain a safe site. Whenever we have done work the builders have had conniptions if there was any breach of site security.
JeremyS is right, contact Safework NSW urgently.
There is a difference between the membrane and anything that may be laid over the membrane to render the rooftop trafficable. In the latter case, something like decking doesn’t form an essential part of the rooftop.
Note that section 106(3) provides that the OC can determine not to repair, maintain or replace common property, if this will not affect the safety of the building or detract from the appearance of any property. (assuming the decking is common property, which is arguable)
I don’t know what the by-law granting exclusive use says, although you mention that the owner must not damage the rooftop – that would be the membrane. That seems to contemplate allowing the owner to install something on the roof over the membrane.
You might want to go through the records to see if there is anything about previous installation of decking, which I imagine would have been paid for by the person who had exclusive use. Look at it this way, if you are the only one who benefits, why should the other owners pay?
I presume you are renting?
No, you are not responsible for replacing a stolen tree.
The issue is whether you are unfinancial on the date of the notice of meeting, and don’t pay before the meeting, refer clause 23(8) of Schedule 1. That is, you must pay what is owed as at the date of notice, before the meeting.
So the meeting being adjourned doesn’t make any difference, you have to pay before the original meeting.
Note the amount is the amount you owe on the date of the notice of meeting.
From the end of 28 days.