Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The tort of negligence is the failure to take reasonable care, i.e a harm caused by carelessness. A malfunctioning dishwasher isn’t negligence.
The owner of the damaged lot should claim on their insurance and it is up to their insurer what action they may take. Note that the other person may not have insurance, that is not uncommon.
I think it looks great, well done Jimmy!
This might be stating the obvious but if you don’t have enough money to pay the insurance premium, your OC needs to take a serious look at its budget and set the levies to meet that budget. When you set the budget you allow for all known expenses, plus additional money both for unexpected items and for scheduled capital items.
insurance is a key item.
No – structural walls form part of the common property and the owner needs permission to demolish them, which may include a by-law, depending on the works.
As a general rule, an owner owns the airspace, not the perimeter or structural walls, slabs, beams etc. Also if the work affects common property consent is required.
On the legal advice front, the Act requires that an OC must not seek legal advice or the provision of other legal services or initiate legal action unless a resolution approving that action is passed at a General Meeting of the owners. There is an exemption if the reasonably anticipated cost is the lesser of $12500 or $1000 a lot.
So in your case with 32 lots if the reasonably anticipated costs are more than $12500 approval at a General Meeting has to be obtained. Note that the costs should be backed up by a fee proposal from the provider.
It seems the EC might not have done anything about getting approval for the legal costs? Even if they have not been to a GM there should have been notice of an EC meeting where they made the decision to retain legal advice, and for what purpose. That would include an estimate of the costs.
Note that if an EC doesn’t have time to get approval at a GM then they should get ratification of what they have done at a GM asap, to avoid risk of personal liability.
Re correspondence – a strata manager and/or the EC receive all sorts of correspondence, usually by way of email. I gave an example a while ago of an owner in our scheme who sent 150 ranting emails in a month. You say there have been emails going back and forward, which is what people do with emails – would you really expect to see them all?
There is no general requirement to table correspondence received. If it is substantive then as a matter of good practice and management you might expect to be notified, even if it were by way of general reference. But I think you need to be careful about what you table or disclose, particularly in a legal context. Legal correspondence can be subject to confidentiality and privilege and you have to be careful about how you manage it.
You’re welcome Millie. One problem you have with your scheme is the majority of owners who effectively hold sway, it makes things very difficult.
That said – I believe if the EC were consistently purporting to make substantive decisions for the OC without notice of those decisions to the other owners, then you could have grounds for challenging that.
I had some thoughts re Felix, will see if I can put them down.
The Building Manager is providing a service which is subject to GST so yes, you would expect that. The contract should have been expressed as being either exclusive or inclusive of GST for certainty’s sake.
Items on the agenda
For the EC to pass a valid resolution, they must issue a notice of EC meeting with the agenda for the meeting, with the proposed resolution/s set out in the notice.
For example, if the EC were proposing to enter into a building contract, you would expect to see a proposed resolution on the agenda to the effect that the OC is to enter into a contract with X for $Y to carry out the building works set out in the specifications attached to the notice of meeting.
Clause 6 of Schedule 3 of the Strata Schemes Management Act states that for a strata scheme that is not large, where an EC meeting is to be held, at least 72 hours notice must be given to all EC members and owners. The notice must specify the time and place of the meeting and give a detailed agenda. (similar provisions apply to large schemes)
As a matter of general law, where notice has not been given of a proposed resolution/decision, it can be invalid. Clause 11 of Schedule 3 provides that where notice is given by one or more owners whose entitlements comprise more than one third of entitlements, that they oppose a proposed decision, then that decision has no force or effect.
Given what Clause 11 says, if notice hasn’t been given of a proposed resolution, then the owners haven’t been given the chance to oppose it. That might be a moot point in your case, as the investor owners seem to have a majority, but still…
As a general observation, it seems that the governance of your EC is appalling. I suggest you contact Fair Trading. You could also write to the strata manager pointing out the provisions of Schedule 3 and asking them why the EC isn’t complying with them.
Schedule 3 paragraph 3 provides that you can appoint any owner to act on your behalf at an EC meeting. They don’t have to be an EC member, but they must be an owner.
Just find someone who thinks the same as you and appoint them for the meeting. You can’t compel them to vote a particular way – they are not your proxy, they are your alternate, which is different.
We have used David Le Page and he is excellent.
Incidentally, be wary of lawyers/advisors who are aggressive/fierce at tge outset, it doesn’t achieve anything.
I had a similar problem some years ago with EC members purporting to make decisions without telling other EC members. They stopped doing that when I refused to authorise a $10K bill they had run up.
If notices are sent by email they are sent with the email addresses in the bcc address line, so no-one can see them. In large blocks you can also send a link to the notice on a website. So no email addresses are disclosed.
I can see why it can seem EC members are hiding, but the conduit for communications is the strata manager – that is their job. As an EC member I do not want emails or phone calls. In a building of 100 that would be a nightmare. In some cases where EC members really are running the property then it would be reasonable to require that their contact details be available.
If the agenda has been sent out for the EGM, your strata manager has a problem because the agenda for a meeting must include a motion for approval of the minutes of the last meeting and a copy of the minutes of that meeting.
It’s a bit more complex than that. The Privacy Act regulates the provision of personal information. Personal information is information that can identify someone and includes things like their address.
However – the Privacy Act regulates specified parties – this includes government agencies, businesses and not-for-profit organisations with a turnover of $3 million or more. Others who are covered by it include hospitals, pharmacies, childcare centres and credit providers.
Query whether an Owners Corporation is caught by the Privacy Act. A strata manager may be. Some organisations opt in to it.
Setting that to one side, the Strata Schemes Management Act provides that owners have a right of access to the strata roll – the list of owners with their addresses. That is what you are entitled to have. The Privacy Act is irrelevant. But you have no right to request their phone numbers or email addresses, because they don’t form part of the strata roll.
Yes that’s right. If you make an exclusive use by-law then it has to specify whether the owner or the Owners Corporation is responsible for maintenance and repair. If it doesn’t say anything about that then the by-law is invalid.