Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
No – you can appoint anyone as a proxy to attend and vote at general meetings on your behalf, they don’t have to be an owner.
Nomination to be on the SC is a different matter.
Lady Penelope is right, the SM can’t make a unilateral decision/declaration like that. It’s up to the insurance company. And a draft by-law doesn’t mean anything.
I am not a great fan of short-term letting but you may find that the policy doesn’t preclude it. Note also that even if it did, or didn’t cover it, that doesn’t make the policy invalid, it may make parts of it void or have the effect that certain things aren’t covered, but not invalid. (there is a difference between void, voidable and invalid)
That’s right, contents insurance doesn’t cover that kind of thing, which is just as well because I don’t drive!
A person is disqualified from being a director if they are disqualified under the Corporations Act – that includes things like being a bankrupt, being convicted of certain types of offences or a banning order. The type of thing you describe doesn’t fit the bill, and nor should it.
Perhaps focus on your issues and don’t worry about that?
The question is, do the by-laws bind the owners, how do they bind the owners? Are they put on a register setting out the works in detail and do they sign something specifically stating that they and any successors in title are bound by those by-laws?
It may be the case that they do, which is fine, but if you don’t have a mechanism to bind specific owners the by-law is as useful as a chocolate teapot.
It is wonderful that the Owners like the tenant so much they want to pay for damage caused by the tenant, the tenant must be an amazing person. Perhaps they could set up a crowdfunding page.
As a general principle if you cause damage you are liable for it. You can insure yourself for the financial liability of certain kinds of damage, that is one of the things that is covered by your vehicle insurance.
The concept of moral hazard is worth thinking about – where another party bears the cost of certain risks, the other party is likely to take more risks, because there are no consequences for that party.
The matter is one between the tenant who caused the damage and the insurance company, the OC has nothing to do with it.
I think there is. In the second case if there is work affecting common property, and things like waterproofing and plumbing, you need to make it clear that those works are the responsibility of the owner, not the owners corporation.
I would be very concerned if owners could do works and then if things go wrong with those works the OC had to foot the bill to fix them. Without a by-law how do you do that, bearing in mind that you need to bind future owners? (you can do a universal by-law that binds people who do works but that is another story)
Franky you mentioned you are a self-managed strata, someone must have the plan and the certificate of title for the common property, if not you should go to LPI as a start.
Just to clarify, in terms of Workcover, you are only caught in that net if the OC employs someone and that person is hurt on the premises in the course of their duties. In most cases the OC will not be an employer for the purposes of that framework, as most tradesmen it uses will be contractors.
Worksafe NSW has a very good summary:
A strata title body corporate (or owners corporation) responsible for any common areas used only for residential purposes is generally excluded from the WHS laws, unless it employs a worker.
Where the common areas are mixed residential and commercial it is likely the WHS will apply.
It is important for members of strata title bodies corporate be aware that once they employ someone to carry out a job, then they become an employer (also called a PCBU) and they have a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers they engage, direct or influence.
This means that if the work is done on the common area, then the WHS Act applies.
An example of when a strata title body corporate becomes an employer would be when it employs a person to mow the front lawn as an employee (contractors are not employees). That front lawn would become the workplace where the strata title body corporate has some WHS responsibilities.
If you are a volunteer officer of the body corporate you are expected to exercise due diligence to ensure the body corporate complies with its WHS obligations if you have workers on site, however volunteer officers cannot be prosecuted for failure to comply with health and safety duty under the WHS legislation.
There are a range of penalties (up to $3 million) if a corporation is found guilty of not following WHS laws.
All people must also take reasonable care of their own health and safety and take reasonable care that they don’t do anything that would adversely affect the health and safety of others. Importantly, if they are given an instruction by the employer or person carrying out a business they need to comply with that instruction as far as reasonably able.
No – the Strata Committee cannot make decisions like that without a formal meeting. That is – there needs to be a notice of a Committee that meets the requirements in the Act, with an agenda including any proposed resolutions and any information relating to those resolutions.
A key element in the requirements relating to notice and having an agenda is that owners can object to a proposed resolution of the Committee, if one third of the owners give notice to the Secretary of their objection to a proposed resolution, that resolution has no force or effect.
More generally, a “decision” of the Committee outside of a properly convened meeting is not a “decision” of the Committee and in legal terms has no effect.
Winston – the kind of decisions you describe need to be the subject of the correct processes. The only time a Committee should act outside the usual meeting process is for very minor matters – for example our Committee can spend up to $500 without having a meeting.
kaindub – whatever powers may be delegated to the Committee is irrelevant if the Committee is not making decisions as required by the Act.
You don’t have enough time to put together anything regarding the unit entitlements, and to be honest even if you did, I am not sure the other owners would be receptive to having that landed on them at an AGM at relatively short notice.
This is a complex matter. As a starting point you need to get a copy of the strata plan showing what the garages are, are they common property with exclusive use or are they part of the lots, or are they separate lots owned by those owners. Are the owners just paying for their apartments, and somehow the garages have been missed?
If the garages are common property with exclusive use, when that exclusive use was granted, did the owners pay something for that exclusive use?
In terms of unit entitlements generally, these are (or should be based) on value at the time of registration. So taking your scheme as an example, it may be that at the time of registration it was determined that the four lots had equal value. The question is, did the valuation include the garages? You need to bear in mind that value is not just determined by things like size – for example if you have two apartments which are exactly the same, but one has views, the one with views will have a higher value. If lower units have outside areas then that will increase their value.
The cases on reallocation of unit entitlement indicate that it is not that easy to change them – the question in a case like yours will usually be, was the allocation unreasonable at the time? What I am saying is that just because on the face of it an allocation may seem not right, that doesn’t mean you will succeed in having the allocation changed.
Convene in this context means calling the meeting, i.e. sending out the notice of meeting.
Sending out a notice of meeting to be held 3 months in the future is a bit excessive in terms of a time gap.
Going by their track record I wouldn’t be renewing their contract at all, they sound hopeless.
Re the EGM they just tried to call to renew their agreement – if it is the case that they were calling the meeting because of their failure to include that in the AGM agenda, they should have borne any costs, because it was their failure. The OC shouldn’t have to pay for their mistakes, should they?
It’s all very well to stick with what you know, but why do the owners want to pay for service that is incompetent and costing them money? I suggest you get a list together of three candidates for a replacement manager and then present that list to the other owners.
Re voting for an absent member at a Committee meeting – yes that’s right, but it doesn’t apply in this case because neither person has been appointed a member of the Committee at the time. That is, you can’t appoint someone to act in your place as a member of the Committee, where you aren’t a member of the Committee. You can only do that once you have been appointed at the annual general meeting.
Yes of course the OC should get an expert report, that way the OC is in control of the issue. As you say the owner’s builder has a vested interest, as does the owner. If it is an OC matter, then the OC should have control of how it is managed – in most cases it will save you a lot of money in the long run.