Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
One audit is sufficient usually. This may depend on what is being checked, audit is a pretty broad term, it could mean a range of things.
I don’t believe so – it’s a ballot.
Apologies yes – that should read election, I will edit.
You don’t say how many lots there are in your scheme, so it’s not clear whether or not you might have had a quorum.
The Strata Manager should have declared the proxies that she held – that is standard procedure, and it needs to be stated so it can be recorded in the minutes.
In terms of adjournment – where a meeting is adjourned, it must be adjourned for at least 7 days. If on the date for the reconvened meeting you still don’t have a quorum, the meeting can proceed – this is set out in Schedule 1 of the Act – so it doesn’t matter whether or not you could get a quorum in December.
So now an EGM is being called – essentially there is no difference – if you can hold an EGM, you can hold an AGM, can’t you – they are both general meetings? The same considerations regarding proxies apply, however if there is no quorum at the EGM then you can’t proceed (because it is a different meeting), whereas if you held the adjourned AGM, you could (hope that makes sense).
There are no minutes of the adjourned AGM, because it has not been completed yet – however, you are within your rights to ask for details of the proxies held by the manager. The manager should have prepared draft minutes which would not yet be finalised, because the meeting has not been completed.
In relation to your comments regarding proxies controlled by the Committee – you are aware that there are limits to how many proxies can be held?
Your manager sounds like a crock.
Just to clarify – as oldanedtired mentioned, the preliminary step is that the owners have to determine the number of members of the Strata Committee, then you do the elections etc.
So you can’t assume the number will be 9 until the owners vote on it.
In relation to this:
…they still say they don’t have meetings, because they don’t have formal motions or agendas or votes. They say their decision-making is just a series of emails with eventual agreement.
The Committee can’t have it both ways – to make a valid decision, they need to have a meeting with an agenda including proposed motions, and vote on those motions – this would be particularly relevant for decisions regarding items that are significant, such as major projects. Notice of the meeting must be given to all owners, with the agenda and proposed resolutions. Bear in mind that giving notice of proposed resolutions is an essential measure as it is connected to two things:
– an owner’s right to attend Strata Committee meetings
– the right of owners holding one-third of unit entitlements to block a proposed resolution by lodging a notice of objection to that resolution.
(note you can have a paper meeting, or a decision made by written resolution, but certain requirements must be met which are dealt with in another response)
A series of emails with eventual agreement is not a resolution in accordance with the Act or general law. It follows that you can challenge those purported “decisions” as not being valid.
Also the agent says it’s too expensive and time-consuming to let all owners know about Committee activities. It requires some emails but also some printed posted copies, Plus the noticeboard copy.
The agent can say that, but the Act requires that notice of Strata Committee meetings and/or proposed resolutions must be given to all owners. It is not optional. The agent is disregarding the requirements of the Act.
It depends on what the business is, there is a significant difference between someone running a website development business from home and someone operating a hairdressing salon.
Importantly, if the business involves people visiting the property then this can affect the scheme’s public liability insurance – it is essential that the insurer be notified.
No it doesn’t – there is no requirement in the Act to give notice to the owners re putting a motion. Bear in mind that an owner can submit a request for a motion to be included in the agenda for the next general meeting at any time.
You can incorporate certain things into the by-laws, but bear in mind that nothing in the by-laws can override what is the Act, so if approval by the owners at a general meeting is what is required by the Act, then that is what should be done.
In relation to timing of general meetings, while an owner may be unlucky and miss the cycle, it is the owner who wants something, if they want to expedite approval of proposed works then it is not unreasonable to ask them to bear the costs – as previously noted why should the other owners pay for it? It is extremely unlikely that the costs of an EGM are going to exceed costs of a renovation.
Where someone is purchasing a property and plans to do works prior to moving in, they can’t seek approval of those works until they are the registered owner. If the OC has clear rules and guidance regarding approval of works these would be available for any prospective purchasers and provide clarity – our by-laws include by-laws dealing with what is required where someone wants to do renovations, these can be obtained in a strata search.
I don’t believe that the OC is obliged to install insulation, more specifically there is no requirement that an OC install insulation – perhaps a better approach is for you to offer to pay for part of it, and persuade the other owners who will benefit to also pay.
You may also be asked to agree to a special by-law making you responsible for the insulation.
I had insulation installed some time ago as I am on the top level, and it made a huge difference.
The Act doesn’t prescribe who has to pay for a meeting in those circumstances.
If the general meeting is being held to specifically deal with someone’s request, i.e. a resolution to approve renovations, then it is reasonable for the person seeking the approval to pay for the meeting. I don’t see why the OC should foot the bill.
If a general meeting is to be held anyway, and a resolution to deal with an owner’s specific issue is included in the agenda then the OC should pay for it, because the meeting has to be held anyway.
Costs can vary widely depending on factors such as the strata manager and the size of the building – there is the preparation of the notice of meeting, printing, mailing, costs of attendance of the manager and minutes of the meeting. So you need to get a breakdown of those costs.
In the case of your Strata Committee I would be asking them:
– if they believe 3 general meetings in six months is an efficient way of handling things
– why the OC is bearing the costs when the meetings were to deal with specific requests of owners.
dustyrusty – if you are not a legal professional perhaps be careful about giving your views re how the law works.
Jimmy is right – the secretary does not have a duty to answer correspondence, the section quoted sets out the functions of the secretary’s role.
I am not sure in what circumstances the terms of a contract would conflict with by-laws, but the by-laws are a contract between all of the owners – if the OC enters into a contract it is holding out to the other party that it can do that.
Flame Tree – neither in Queensland nor anywhere else does the Secretary have an exalted place in defamation law. If a person makes defamatory imputations about someone, either verbally or in writing, they may find themselves in receipt of a civil action. Being secretary of a strata community has nothing to do with it, and nor does being an amateur.
Have a look at sections 136 and 139 of the Act – there is no way a by-law of that type would survive a challenge.
I suggest you tell them that if they proceed the by-law will have no effect, and if they insist you will apply for an order under section 150 to have it invalidated.
They are wearing clothes, in a kitchen, what’s the problem? To be honest, if you feel embarrassed, perhaps you need to ask yourself why you feel that way.
I used to live in an apartment where I could see down into another resident’s kitchen. He was very large and unattractive, and the sight of him in briefs was horrendous, but I decided if I raised the issue it would just make it worse.
The short answer to that is no – that is, you paying a large amount of money to the OC will just be a forward payment on your levies, it has nothing to do with works that may be required to fix the garage, and it doesn’t make you exempt from future levies, where the amount you have paid is less than the amount that might be owing at any given time.
Your key concern seems to be that you want the garage ceiling fixed as soon as possible. The OC has a duty to repair and maintain the common property. So I suggest you write to the Committee advising that your garage ceiling requires work, in line with the other works, and that this needs to be done as a priority.
If the Committee stalls or delays doing the work then you will have to consider whether to escalate the issue. Another approach if they do stall is to offer to pay for the works yourself, but that they must reimburse you, or the amount is reflected as a credit against your levies. However to do that, you would have to make sure that the Committee and/or OC resolve that the works must be done, to make it clear that it is an OC responsibility.
It’s not clear from your post whether it is the special levy that has been set or the works that have been completed. If the works have not been completed then it would be easy to vary those works to include your garage ceiling.