Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Congratulations on achieving that result!
The payout belongs to the owners collectively, i.e. the owners corporation. It is the owners corporation that has the insurance, not the owners severally. Therefore the owners corporation receives the money.
We received a home warranty insurance payout some time ago after an experience with a dodgy builder, it just went into the OC’s funds.
Unit entitlements are not relevant to the apportionment of the money, the money would be spent on the repairs as they are required – to that extent you are correct, the money must be spent on those repairs. However, that would not be determined by entitlement, but by the repairs needed. For example, a smaller unit may need more repairs than a larger unit and if that is the case then those repairs have to be carried out.
If there were any money remaining after repairs had been effected, that would remain in the owners corporation’s funds, and would benefit all the owners as it would offset any future liabilities. In that respect you could say that that benefit would accrue to each owner differently, in accordance with their entitlements.
I’m not sure – fire regulations are mysterious things, however it is not an issue of whether your doors are faulty, but whether they comply with the standards that currently apply. These standards include things such as door thickness and any glass used in a vision panel.
In relation to asbestos – doors manufactured up to the mid 1980s had an asbestos core, while a door may be wooden it is usually hollow and filled with asbestos. If people want to make alterations to an existing door you are not allowed to do that if there is asbestos in it, and apparently that includes changes to the locks!
You don’t need permission to attend an EC meeting, an owner is entitled to attend – para 14 Schedule 3. You certainly don’t need to give any notice, but you can’t speak unless the EC grants you permission.
At least 72 hours (not 24) notice of an EC meeting must be given, and a notice posted on the board or the notice sent to all owners. The notice must state where the meeting is to be held and include a sufficiently detailed agenda.
In relation to a proxy at an EC meeting, I think what you mean is a representative of the owner. The EC can refuse to aloow a non-owner to attend.
I don’t know what drugs your EC is smoking, but you can ask them to comply with the law (unlikely as it may be). They can pass a contrary resolution but they can’t override the law.
Also if you wanted to do all that, i.e. rearrange all the legal entitlements and create your own property title, you would have to meet all the costs which would be considerable.
We hold our AGMs in a pub, it’s in an area away from other people and noise. It’s a neutral venue as I used to have meetings at my place, but didn’t like people nosing around.
Nobody has a drink, even after the proceedings – perhaps we should.
The EC doesn’t have the power to approve paving the common property for a barbecue area. That is a matter for the owners to decide at a general meeting, and would require a special resolution of the owners.
So yes there is something that you can do – tell them that they can’t proceed with changing the common property unless it has the required approval of the owners at a general meeting. And if they do proceed you will be lodging an application for an order to stop them.
Refer here.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ssma1996242/s65a.html
I wouldn’t be happy with the strata manager either.
The regulations come into effect in March 2018. I can’t find anything about a compliance certificate, or a cost for one. The strata does have to comply by the due date, but that could be done by just checking with all the owners, who can then respond accordingly.
There are also provisions in relation to rental properties – the window lock has to be included in the condition report.
I would be telling the strata manager to reverse the charge.
The minutes of the previous meeting are an agenda item at the next meeting – the purpose is to confirm that the minutes are a true and correct record of the proceedings at the relevant meeting.
If it is determined that the minutes aren’t accurate, then confirmation is given subject to the changes required to make them correct. They don’t have to be rewritten, just amended to make them correct.
There is no need to put them to the next meeting but it is important that the minutes of the meeting where the minutes are considered accurately state the changes that are required.
In relation to ventilation and damp/mould generally, bear in mind that the bathroom would have been built to the building standards that applied at the time. Presuming that the air vents and window met those requirements then it is arguable whether the OC has any further responsibility.
Air vents by themselves will not usually deal with condensation in a bathroom from a shower. The advice we have usually had is that you should open the window at least after the shower to let the condensation out. You don’t have to keep the window open at all times.
You could apply to the OC to install an exhaust fan – as noted above query whether they have to pay, as the condensation is coming from inside.
In terms of treating mould generally, don’t use bleach or borax etc., this will not kill the mould. The best treatment is oil of cloves diluted in hot water.
There is no difference in the notice requirements for AGMs and EGMs, they are both general meetings of the owners.
The key issue for notice is that it is sent to the owner at the address on the strata roll, bear in mind they may not live in the building.
The notice of meeting and agenda for an AGM do not have to be posted on the notice board.
7 clear days notice of an AGM must be given. Exclude the day of posting and the day of meeting and add 3 to 4 days for mail time.
NCAT doesn’t have that jurisdiction, they don’t award compensation to owners, as distinct from costs which are the costs of running a proceeding (and it is pretty rare for costs to be awarded).
I guess you could issue a letter of demand for a purported debt, but you would have to be pretty sure that you had a basis for it, including that you took all necessary steps to mitigate any loss (such as was the property uninhabitable during the period).
This is not legal advice.
We don’t know if it is a common wall. We also don’t know if the wall is load bearing (in which case it is common property), or if the proposed alterations affect common property in some other way.
chesswood says that the wall is probably a load bearing wall.
In relation to the purported advice from the Council official, Council approval may also be required if the dimensions of a room are being changed.
So what the applicant needs to do is supply all the necessary information in order for the EC to make a decision about the proposal. This includes:
– complete scope of works, including any works that may impact common property, and drawings.
– engineer’s report in relation to the wall, specifically in relation to the load bearing issue. Note that the EC can get its own report on that.
– written advice from the Council in relation to development approval, i.e. whether or not it is required.
Note that if a DA is required the OC has to approve putting its common seal on the application.
That gives the EC a starting point. Note that if the works do affect common property and/or if the wall is load bearing, then the approval of the owners is required which has to be by way of a resolution at a general meeting. You would expect for a special by-law to be put in place to cover the works in that case.
It is not correct that no approval is required if works don’t affect common property. Section 116 of the current Act provides that an owner must give at least 14 days notice of an intention to alter a lot. This gives the EC time to consider whether further information is required or whether in fact more formal approval needs to be given. (or for the EC to seek an order stopping works)
Back to the original question re the owner voting. You can’t say they have a material personal interest in the matter, even though it is their lot, so they shouldn’t be excluded from voting. To clarify – there is a distinction between a person getting a benefit e.g. in some financial way, such as the scheme entering into a contract for the provision of services from a lot owner, and them “benefitting” merely by virtue of doing works to their lot.
A statutory appointment is where the strata manager has been appointed by an adjudicator in response to an application under the Act. You see that where a strata scheme has been badly mismanaged and the manager is appointed to make all the decisions for the scheme. The effect is that the owners have no part in the decisions made for that scheme.
Now if the strata manager has been the manager for 20 years I would venture there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that he has been appointed by an adjudicator. Those types of appointments simply can’t last that long.
It may be that the terms of the manager’s appointment delegate all the functions of the owners to him, but that is very unwise. As Jimmy suggests I think you should start by asking for a copy of that agreement.
Also – in relation to your question about the general meeting, the fact that only the members of the EC were in attendance doesn’t matter, it was a general meeting, not an EC meeting so they were there in their capacity as owners at a general meeting. The decision was a decision of the owners, not the EC. Note that if you were all voting at the GM on the carpet matter that indicates that the strata manager is not a statutory appointment, because otherwise he would be making that decision.
It sounds to me like you need to get rid of this person as soon as possible.
I think you have answered your question – if the material isn’t offensive or embarrassing then it shouldn’t be removed.
Of course the EC may have a very subjective view as to what is offensive or embarrassing, but it is the owners’ noticeboard, not the EC’s.