Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You should know if it has been transferred, as the change of owner should be notified to the owners corporation. Where are the levy notices going?
If it has been transferred you will have an issue trying to get anything from the estate, and the new owner isn’t liable.
I suggest you check the title at LPI, and if it hasn’t transferred give notice to the estate – you may want to consider lodging a caveat.
You can abstain. But you need to say you’re abstaining. If you’re on the Committee the least you can do is participate in decisions, bearing in mind you count in calculating how many votes are needed.
But there is nothing that forces you to vote.
Applying the “but-for” test, the deceased owner caused the damage to the common property, and the estate is liable for the cost of repair. Just make sure you do a full audit of the damage, record the cost of repair and take steps to ensure that the property is not transferred without the OC being reimbursed.
I’m surprised the OC paid for the door first time around.
The OC could also contact its insurer to see if they will pay, and they can deal with the estate.
Lucky you. Yes, the Act requires the Committee to elect office bearers. Refer section 41.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma2015242/s41.html
You don’t need a resolution at an AGM to engage a structural engineer or other suitable consultant to advise on specific aspects of the building. We have used experts to advise on a range of things, because there is no point in “fixing” something if you haven’t identified the underlying cause. The SC can resolve to do that.
If you are not sure you should seek advice from a qualified person who will take into account your specific circumstances.
Of course the Treasurer is not going to support getting a new SM, the current SM is doing what she and the secretary want. As Jimmy says, it seems that certain Committee members are making decisions to benefit themselves – as a general proposition Committee members have a duty to act in the interests of the OC as a whole.
Unless there is a compelling reason why they are prioritising works to their apartments in preference to other works to the common property, you should have grounds for challenging that.
I don’t think the funds for specific purposes approach is the way to deal with this, you have more serious issues.
From what you have said it will be difficult to get the other owners on board, so i suggest you put the paperwork together seeking an interim order preventing the OC from proceeding with any works and lodge that with NCAT, together with a more complete application which may include a request that the troublesome Committee members be removed, and that a strata manager be appointed.
Note that an application for an interim order has to be lodged together with an application. Give Fair Trading a call and ask them if you have to wait until the resolution is approved at the AGM, or if you can lodge an application prior.
https://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/Documents/ccd_form_strata_interim_orders_application.pdf
https://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cc/Divisions/strata.aspx
When you lodge the application provide a copy to the Strata Manager, although he/she will receive it from NCAT anyway.
Going by the renovations that have been done in our building, I don’t think it is unreasonable at all. Depending on the type of renovation, the lift can be monopolised by the tradesmen, not to mention what is carried up and down in the lift. Compromises need to be made on both sides.
The Strata – that strange many-headed beast, when you cut one head off it just grows again. By the way “strata” denotes layers.
Moving right along – I am an animal lover, I have always owned dogs and currently own a dog. However, in this case the OC has determined, and confirmed quite recently, that it does not wish to have animals. And that is fine, it is up to the owners to decide the rules that they want to apply to their scheme.
I suggest you not get caught up in responding to the owner’s arguments or reasons for keeping a dog in breach of the by-laws. For the OC’s purposes it is entirely irrelevant what went on between the owner and his solicitor. That is not the OC’s problem.
The owner lied about keeping a dog, claiming it was visiting, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the owner knew from the outset they were breaching the by-law and to that extent has acted in bad faith.
No-one gives a flying fig if the dog has been a family pet for many years, which seems to be contradicted by the dog being relatively young.
The owner has not taken all reasonable steps to comply with the by-laws, because they are breaching the by-law that provides that no animals are to be kept. A common response when someone gets caught out breaching a rule or by-law is for them to claim they are being bullied or harassed. So call their bluff – issue a notice to comply, and remember an owner can be fined for a breach.
I believe that in this case where the owners have only recently determined to keep the no animal by-law, there is a reasonable possibility that if it went to the Tribunal the by-law would be upheld. If it isn’t, you have to ask what is the point of having a choice as to the by-laws you have regarding animals? As bangles says what is the use of by-laws if they are just going to be ignored or overturned?
$400 is quite reasonable, registering by-laws is not simple, and the LPI won’t accept a pdf or photocopy. The document has to be signed by an authorised person and have the OC seal affixed, and you have to provide the certificate of title for the property. The LPI fee for lodgement is $138.80.
By the way there is no procedural difference between an AGM and a GM, they are both general meetings. It’s just that an AGM must include certain motions.
There isn’t a specific section that says this, however by operation of the law you must include a proposed motion on any notice of meeting. For example the Act provides that one third of the owners by unit entitlement can give notice of objection to a proposed motion of a strata committee meeting, and any decision on that motion will have no effect.
More generally, the purpose of a notice is to give notice of proposed motions. If a motion isn’t on the agenda, no notice has been given, so how would absent owners know?
If the OC is given advice that an item of common property is dangerous, and they actively refuse to rectify it, then the likelihood of insurance agreeing to pay would be low. An insurance contract is of a particular nature, both parties have to act in good faith.
Ziggy if an accident happened the OC would be to blame, not the lift company. What is the lift company supposed to do?
If the motions are there ideally you should have it recorded that the OC determined not to have a Committee.
Yes, the effect of the new Act was that a new agreement had to be put in place, that should have been an item on the AGM agenda.
Of course an owner can request a copy of the agreement, effectively they are a party to it. There’s nothing magic about a Committee member.
Yes that’s right, refer what I said above:
However, if they do form part of the common property the OC can remove them, which is a good bargaining chip to have when you are looking at persuading the relevant owners to agree to a by-law.
However you can’t enforce a by-law that has been unilaterally imposed without the owner’s consent.