Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Dividing this into two parts:
1. Can one person own the roof? Yes they can – as you said, the previous owner of the entire building chose to include the roof (or most of it) as part of the title to his lot when he subdivided the property. That was his prerogative, and anyone buying into the building did so on that basis.
The strata doesn’t own the roof (most of it) because the previous owner included it as part of his title.
On the plus side, depending on how the strata scheme is set out and what the by-laws say, if one person owns most of the roof, they should be responsible for the ongoing repairs and maintenance of that part of the property.
Do the by-laws make any provision regarding that? If not the other owners may have a case for having a by-law that deals with the issue, or perhaps reallocation of the unit entitlements to reflect that the owner of the roof has the sole benefit of it.
2. In terms of the small access area on the roof to which the other owners have access – you don’t say whether that is common property. If it is, the owner of the rest of the roof can’t insist on bricking up the view, because it isn’t part of their property. They could only do that if all the other owners agreed.
However – if it is an access arrangement by way of something such as a licence for the other owners, and the roof owner actually owns that part of the property then they might be able to insist on bricking up. It sounds unlikely that is the case, as you say there is a boiler room and laundry area which would usually be common property. If you have more detailed information that would be useful.
The thing is – the lease was coming up for renewal anyway, at which point he was within his rights to put up the rent and you would have had to accept that or move out. Which is basically what he has done.
Landlords can charge whatever rent they want whenever a lease comes up for renewal.
I am sorry this has come at a bad time for you, but you don’t have any recourse.
It seems that one of the issues here is dismantling and reassembling the kitchen is going to cost a great deal more than just putting in a new kitchen, and you would be entitled to reassembly – you can’t not have a kitchen.
In the circumstances I would suggest reaching a compromise and saying a new kitchen will cost less, I will accept $ of an appropriate percentage toward that new kitchen – that way you are saving them money in two respects.
A couple of things:
– the strata manager isn’t going to bring up renewal of the agreement if it automatically rolls over. It is up to the OC to be vigilant and take steps to change the manager if they want to, which would require some work a few months before expiry.
– I am not sure why you abstained on the motion in relation to the budget. If I were in that position I would have voted against and requested that the reasons for my objection be specifically noted in the minutes – that way you have it on record. An abstention is a waste of your vote in those circumstances.
Strata can be difficult – for the first five or six years I was in my present place I was abused, insulted and at certain points almost reduced to tears. Amongst other things I have gotten rid of 4 incompetent strata managers. I won’t go into the details of all the other dramas we have had, but believe me it has been very stressful at times. But I have no intention of going anywhere. Ultimately it is your choice.
Section 71 – the SM sounds like a bit of a nong. Section 71 is clear, you don’t mix the sinking and admin funds. It is not industry practice.
You could say to a magistrate oh well I know I was driving over the limit, but lots of people do it, so it must be ok.
If a scheme is regularly breaching section 71 it would be a factor you could raise in any application regarding failure to manage a scheme. One consideration is it indicates the scheme is failing to budget properly. Admin costs are fairly static so it is a simple exercise to estimate required funds for a year.
Agency agreement – usually agreements will have a rollover clause which provides something along the lines of it continuing unless the OC terminates it once the initial term has expired. There are a number of ways it can continue, e.g. for another term of three years, then successive three year periods. Have you checked the specific terms of the original agreement?
It isn’t possible to say Daphne, you have to take into account a wide range of factors including the age of the building/s, maintenance that has been done in the past, projected maintenance needs, whether anything needs urgent attention now, size of the common property vs what is lot property,
That is what a sinking fund plan is for – and they are required under the Strata Schemes Management Act. My experience from those plans is that they are often wrong, but they are a start. A sinking fund plan will tell you what will need to be done over a period of time and how much money you should put aside to meet those projected costs.
In our case we got a detailed engineer’s report which gave us a much better idea of what needed to be done. We have put the strata levies up over time to build up funds to meet expenses we know we are going to incur, as that is the way we prefer to do it.
Does your scheme have a sinking fund report?
Going back to your original question – the state of the sinking fund is only one factor in considering whether a scheme is well managed. There are a number of elements you have to take into account.
No, they don’t. They rely entirely on the written submissions.
I don’t think making a sound decision is a priority for some of them.
It is not an easy act to follow, but they never are. I still get confused and I have been staring at it for about 15 years.
Up until recently I worked for a large bank which is well known for providing account services to strata managers. They didn’t pay the strata managers for parking money with them.
The kind of arrangement you describe is not a commission. A commission is a percentage of a specific transaction payable on entry into the transaction either as a one off or on a rolling basis. A bonus or payment based on the total amount of accounts would fall outside of the type of arrangement dealt with in the Act.
If you believe your strata manager is doing something like that, the simplest thing to do is ask him/her if they receive any form of commission, bonus or other monetary reward in connection with the services they provide as a strata manager.
If a manager receives a benefit for placing money with a financial institution it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is not in the interests of the scheme. It would be wrong if the manager placed the money with an FI paying a lower interest rate, because they were going to get something out of it. But if the interest rate is the same as anywhere else, you can’t say that is detrimental to the strata scheme.
Any kind of arrangement that is detrimental to a strata scheme is not good. It may be that a strata manager uses the same maintenance people over and over again without bothering to get quotes from better suppliers, even though he doesn’t get any monetary benefit. That is why an EC needs to be proactive and take an interest in the management of the strata scheme. In the case of investing money, we have always determined where the money should be invested and at what interest rate, not the strata manager. Note that you are limited in where that money can be invested under the Act.
Yes it is dealt with in Schedule 2, paragraph 10. What it means is that either it is done by proxy, or one of them can vote if the other/s are either absent or give consent, or the person who votes is the first person named on the strata roll (title). So it doesn’t have to be by proxy.
(4) Exercise of voting rights by joint owners to be by proxy The voting rights of joint owners of a lot may not be exercised by them individually but may be exercised:
(a) by a proxy (who may be one of them), or
(b) as provided by subclause (5).
(5) Other circumstances in which joint owners may exercise voting rights If, on a vote at a general meeting, the rights of joint owners of a lot are not exercised by a proxy as referred to in subclause (4), one of them may act as such a proxy:
(a) if the other joint owners are absent or such of them as are present give their consent, or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply-if he or she is the owner first named on the strata roll as one of the joint owners.
I don’t know where to start on this, it’s disgusting.
If the lawyer wanted to take legal action on the part of the OC, there would have to be a resolution by the OC or the EC under delegated authority to commence legal action. It is not the sort of thing that can just be done on a whim. For example, a Supreme Court action would cost 10s of thousands of dollars just to get to the Court, and that is being conservative.
Has there been any resolution by the OC to enter into the purported agreement to charge $1100 an hour (which is astronomical)? Any such resolution would have had to have been supported by a copy of the agreement, or at least a summary of its terms.
When the lawyer corresponds with you, does he say he is acting on behalf of the OC? If it isn’t on the firm’s letterhead, then it suggests that it is coming from him personally, albeit using law firm stationery.
The Lawyer subsequently went to the Head of his Firm, who OK’d the Firm suing me, demanding apologies, retractions, major money etc for something the lawyer “took exception to”. If I didn’t comply, the Firm would take me to the Supreme Court. (That which I was accused of was done by someone else. There’s been no apologie and no retraction from their side. Not a peep. They’re still hunting the person ‘responsible’.)
Can you clarify, is/was the firm threatening to sue you or the OC? A law firm doesn’t usually “sue” someone, other than for unpaid fees.
It may be that the simplest route for you would be to make a complaint to the Law Society. You could start by writing a letter to the head of the law firm saying that is what you are going to do, but perhaps it isn’t worth it.
The Property Stock & Business Agents legislation provides that any strata management agreement must disclose any commissions the strata manager may be paid.
If it doesn’t, the strata manager has to pay back the commission.
Financial institutions don’t pay bonuses/commissions to anyone for placing money with them – they don’t need to.
I am sure there are strata managers taking kick-backs just as there are in any industry, I knew one who did, but it is not that common, and applies to any sphere.
I would think that having a laundry on a balcony would not only be a breach of the by-laws but perhaps more importantly, a breach of building regulations.
I suggest you give the Council a call, because if it is illegal (and I think it is) they will be on to the owner very quickly. That won’t solve all your problems but it will get the ball rolling.
It sounds like a nightmare, you have my sympathy.
Cappy raises a really good point – I had never thought of it before.
There is no way minutes can be formally approved within the current 7 day window that requires them to be either posted on the noticeboard or provided to the owners. Strictly speaking, the minutes provided within that window should have, “Subject to Approval” on them.
So you say to the police, hey I got this letter about me parking in a visitor space and they claim I damaged the gate and are asking me to pay. What would the police do/say?
The police would tell you it is a private matter.
It is a private matter and should be dealt with as a private matter unless/until it reaches a certain point. As Whale says you write them a letter and make it very clear:
– I parked there because I was prevented from parking in my parking space
– I did not damage the gate and i will provide a statutory declaration to that effect
– I will not pay for any purported damage to the gate
– the OC has an obligation to maintain/repair common property and is responsible for fixing the gate.
Provide a copy of the letter to the managing agent for the property so they are in the loop.
The OC doesn’t have any evidence that gaven83 damaged the gate. In the absence of that, they don’t have a leg to stand on. In this case, it is to his advantage that he is a tenant, they can’t whack the bill on to him as an owner.
In other words, you tell them to go jump.