Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If you decide on a number of members that is greater than the number of candidates, the quorum is determined by the number of members set at the AGM.
So if you decide on 7 but you only have 4 members, then if one person is absent you won’t have a quorum.
I don’t know why anyone would do that anyway.
I think what you mean is can the by-law be retrospective, so in this case a previous change to a door lock would effectively be in breach of the proposed by-law.
The answer to that is no, because the change to the lock occurred before the by-law. It would be nonsensical to say that someone breached a by-law that wasn’t in existence.
One way of clarifying the operation of the by-law is to say that as at the date of the implementation of the by-law, any existing locks are the responsibility of the OC.
I don’t think we can give you legal advice, however look at it this way, and this is not legal advice.
If your supervisor charged you GST on an amount that included GST, they would be charging you GST on a tax. A tax is not a service or good.
Anyone who charges GST is obliged to remit that amount to the ATO, because it is a tax. In the scenario you describe the ATO would then refund the relevant amount to the supervisor. The supervisor has charged you that amount as a tax, therefore on one analysis it is fraudulent, unless they refund that amount to you.
I suggest the best option for you is to call the ATO.
Section 100 of the Strata Schemes Management Act provides that an OC can borrow money but they can only borrow money if a resolution approving the loan has been passed at a general meeting of the owners.
So the OC must have approved a resolution to enter into the loan. You should ask for the notice of meeting and minutes of the meeting approving the loan, it would have to have included the detailed terms of the loan and details of how it was going to be paid back. You are entitled to see those documents, as they are records of the OC.
Of course if the owners didn’t approve the loan at a general meeting, then that is a whole other matter, and I would be asking some serious questions. The Strata Committee doesn’t have the power to approve a loan.
You’re right. If an owner has to get a tradesperson out of hours to fix common property it is still the OC’s responsibility to pay for it. What you did wasn’t unreasonable, you had to get into your property. Perhaps you should ask the manager whether they are ok with you calling them at 9pm so they can fix your lock.
I am presuming it is the original lock so still the responsibility of the OC.
I could be wrong but I have had a look and found a recent Tribunal decision with facts that are very similar to the case presented here – not the same but similar. It is a very complex case. If it is that case then there are a number of things that have been left out of the question, and the decision is different to that represented. For example the decision did not say the works were not to be removed, but a 12 month period has been set for consideration of a number of issues before any decision regarding possible removal can be made. Some of the works are subject to a Council stop order.
It may be that this is a different case, but if it is the same case I suggest it would be helpful to be more accurate in the representation of the issues.
In any event the answer to your two questions, as general principles, remains the same.
I know the Tribunal can be unpredictable but it is difficult to believe that a Tribunal member would rule against you in the way described. As a preliminary, it’s not clear how a claim could be out of time, if an owner appropriates common property, there is no time limit. Technically the common property belongs to the owners corporation, so how could a claim be out of time? To be clear, this is not legal advice.
What do you mean the neighbours charged the OC for waterproofing? If the OC believed it was not responsible for works why would they pay for it?
If the upstairs neighbours carried out such extensive works including adding doors and windows and presumably making a non-habitable space into a habitable space, you would expect Council approval to be necessary. Have you contacted your Council? Did the neighbours get approval? If they did, was the application for approval approved by the OC? If the Council was not involved I suggest you contact them as a matter of urgency.
In respect of your specific questions:
- no an owner cannot appropriate, take over or alter common property for their own use without the approval of the OC, and in the majority of cases compensating the OC. Property has a value. There have been numerous cases where an owner has been required to restore common property that they have altered or taken over for their own use.
- in my opinion it would be reasonable to reject an exclusive use by-law that didn’t make an owner responsible for the relevant works, and if applicable, pay compensation to the OC. You should be acting in the best interests of the OC as a whole, if an owner has taken something of value for their own use, then the by-law and other matters should reflect that.
The short answer unfortunately is yes.
There is no positive obligation on an owner to report an issue with common property. As a general observation it is in the interests of an owner to do so, as they bear part of the costs of rectifying it, and the sooner it is dealt with the better. The previous owner didn’t do that.
In this case, you can’t expect the new owner to foot the bill, it’s common property and it needs to be fixed. Even if the previous owner were still there, that would be the case.
Sorry I forgot section 46, if a Committee member wants to be paid for services done by them for the OC, that can only be done retrospectively, with the approval of the owners in a general meeting.
I agree with TrulEConcerned regarding the issues that arise when you pay owners to do a regular job, this opens up a minefield in relation to WHS issues, as it can be said that the OC is employing the relevant people.
In relation to payment, you can’t credit an amount to the levies owed. If the OC decides to proceed, they have to actually pay the relevant people. You are not reimbursing those people, they haven’t spent any money, you are paying them to do a job. That has to be reflected in the accounts. Note also if a person has an ABN they have to charge GST.
Yes that’s right re replacement cost. What you should do is get a qualified person in to assess the current bathroom, and give an estimate of the replacement cost, i.e. like for like. In this case you say the owner is paying for the tiles and fittings so you may be ok.
An owner can’t expect the OC to replace a basic bathroom with marble and gold taps.
Failure of an owner to inspect and report problems that then become bigger problems is a big issue, I am not sure what measures can be put in place to deal with that. You could be proactive and arrange investigations of other lots, but you may not like what you find.
You are paying to make good the bathroom after the waterproofing is replaced. To replace the waterproofing the bathroom has to be ripped out. The principle applies to any works the OC has to carry out.
I have a drainage pipe from my shower that is failing, and the bathroom will need to ripped out to do the work. Because the pipe is common property the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only.
You are paying to make good the bathroom after the waterproofing is replaced. To replace the waterproofing the bathroom has to be ripped out. The principle applies to any works the OC has to carry out.
I have a drainage pipe from my shower that is failing, and the bathroom will need to ripped out to do the work. Because the pipe is common property the OC will pay to put the bathroom back but for replacement cost only.
It’s not just fire. As a general consideration items on common property access areas may be a trip hazard, and if someone did trip/fall and injure themselves the OC could be liable for any injuries, because the items are on common property. Usually you would assess the risk on a case by case basis. For example in our building there is an apartment near the back door with a narrow walkway, and we have told them they are not to put plants and other items in that area.
They can’t require anyone to use a QR code to enter the building. Residential buildings are not required to have QR code check-in. You are right, if they obtained a QR code they have supplied misleading information.
I don’t know how you might want to approach this but I certainly wouldn’t be using the QR code, and if you are challenged tell them that they can’t require you to.