Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
No that is not correct either, refer here.
http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sda2007210/s7.html
Cosmo it is not the majority, everyone present has to agree. It is governed by the Surveillance Devices Act.
Only if all those attending agree.
In my experience it is counterproductive, minutes are to record proceedings of a meeting, they are not meant to be a verbatim record of everything that was said at the meeting.
You only need 75% of the votes cast at the meeting (not of all the owners), so as long as you have a quorum at the meeting that’s fine (unless you don’t get the 75%).
Costs shouldn’t be that much, speak to the strata manager.
No Lady K it is not. There has to be a sound reason, i.e. refusal to grant approval has to be reasonable.
The SSMA does not limit your rights in the way described by Robert – for example, if an OC refused approval for an internal renovation on the basis that, “we don’t like it”, that is not a sound reason, and the refusal can be challenged.
It sounds like you have provided all that is necessary, so if I were you I would proceed to adjudication.
You are required under section 258 of the Act to give notice of any tenancy within 14 days of it commencing, including the name of the tenant and address for service to the tenant.
If you haven’t done that then I don’t think you have a basis for challenging any additional cost.
You can advise/ask the strata manager to send you notices by email.
The word “may” in that context is permissive, i.e. you can nominate in writing prior to the meeting, or you can nominate in person at the meeting. That is sensible, as it covers two scenarios, including where someone can’t attend.
It does not denote that it is an optional provision.
Any attempt to stop people nominating at the meeting would be invalid.
You’re not obliged to do anything in the absence of evident concerns. I think you have been very patient with this owner, probably too patient.
If I were you I would call her bluff and tell her if she wants that type of investigation she can pay for it.
Yes it does.
I assume the developers want to buy the lots as well, otherwise there isn’t much point ????
I don’t see why it is acceptable for an owner to permanently store/keep items on the common property. The area on which they have placed the items is not part of their lot. That is appropriation of the common property for their own use and benefit.
We have had similar issues and made it clear that residents cannot place anything on the common propert without permission. That includes things such as barbecues and pot plants.
I don’t think it is the responsibility of the OC to “improve” the slabs, if what is there met the applicable building standards at the time.
Yes, it’s for the waterproofing, to make it clear the OC is not responsible for it.
As a start why not ask for the accounts, that will give a good indication of whether an audit is necessary.
I agree with Sir Humphrey, $4K is very low for a scheme that size.
You don’t have to wait until the AGM, a general meeting is a general meeting.
trexkraken indicates some of the owners want to commission a painting for the entrance. That is a very different matter to mainintenance and things like carpet and painting.
To me the threshold question is, is that a justifiable use of owners’ funds?