Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Fraud is a criminal offence, it isn’t a matter for NCAT.
gaven83 should follow Whale’s advice, calling the OC’s bluff is the best way to handle it and in most cases will defuse the situation.
By the way Daphne it is a standard by-law, it distinguishes what requires ordinary approval and what requires approval by special resolution, which is covered by Section 65A of the Act.
The issue here seems to be the Secretary. In an ideal world, the Secretary drafts the minutes and they are then sent to the members of the EC for review – it is at that point that the members should say if they think the minutes are wrong or need adjustment etc. Then the first item of business at the next meeting is that the EC resolves to approve the minutes as a true and accurate record of the previous meeting. Again, if they aren’t accurate, the members can still request that they be changed. It is only upon approval that the minutes should be signed by the Chair.
Obviously that is the ideal and may not strictly occur in practice, but if the EC has a Secretary who is drafting the minutes to suit themselves, then the problem is both with the Secretary and the EC not controlling the Secretary.
It’s not clear if Felix is a member of the EC – Felix are you? Or are you just a concerned observer?
From what Felix has said I gather this was an Executive Committee meeting?
You can’t put up a motion at a General Meeting of the OC in relation to minutes of the EC, as it is a different forum. The people voting at a general meeting are different to the people voting at an EC – people who were not in attendance at a meeting cannot then vote on whether or not a minute of that meeting was wrong.(also refer below re the general principles that apply to minutes)
In terms of minutes generally – once they are approved at a subsequent meeting and signed by the Chair they cannot be changed and they stand as a record of that meeting. Even if all of the attendees agree they are wrong they can’t be changed (really). You can make minor changes to signed minutes, such as changing a date, this would have to be done by the Chair and initialled by hand.
What you can do if you believe the minutes of an ECM are incorrect is raise it as a motion to be included in the agenda of a subsequent meeting. You can do that in a number of ways depending on why you think they are wrong. For example – the motion can say, “That in respect of Motion X approved by the EC at its meeting on X, the EC noted that the following was incorrect….” and then insert what was wrong, and what the minutes should have said.
That way you correct the record. Of course the others may not agree with you, but if the minutes are properly drafted there should be a record that the issue was raised.
If you believe an actual resolution was wrong you would have to have the EC rescind that resolution and put up another resolution for approval.
These are all very fine technical points, and you could spend a lot of time and effort with little chance of having the motion declared invalid.
if you have the numbers your best bet would be to request an EGM and overturn the motion that way.
In terms of convening a meeting, that can be done in a number of ways, some of which are detailed in the legislation. But many are just convened, with no formal resolution – if they weren’t there would be a lot of schemes not having general meetings.
Yes, that’s right, it has to be registered to be a valid by-law.
A friend has an investment apartment in a company title building – the management committee has a habit of passing a range of rules and introducing charges (imposed selectively) which a review of the constitution indicates are not enforceable at all. Of course, persuading them of that is a whole other matter.
Yes, it’s clear on the face of the provision – the word is “may”, not “must” – so it is permissive, not prescriptive.
In other words the by- law can provide the owner is responsible, but if it doesn’t/is silent, the OC is.
I can understand how angry and frustrated you must be, perhaps the way the OC/EC has gone about it has not been ideal. If cards were cancelled when there was no by-law permitting the cancellation, then that is wrong. If cards were cancelled in an arbitrary way, with no reasonable grounds, then that is also wrong.
However, I wouldn’t necessarily infer that because you had a card cancelled that means you have been categorised as a prostitute/drug dealer/whatever. It just means that you had your card cancelled.
Re a tenant and their rights under the Act. They are also subject to the terms of the lease (presuming those terms are not in conflict with the Act), and if they are tenants in a strata scheme, they are bound by the by-laws of that Scheme. When you enter into a tenancy agreement you are agreeing to be bound by those by-laws, as they apply from time to time.
I am not sure of how the legal intricacies of this would work, but I don’t think it is simple.
What are they going to sue the EC and OC for?
People often say they are going to sue someone, with no basis or understanding of why or what for.
From what you have said, neither the EC nor the OC have done anything wrong, so don’t worry about it.
Murphy’s Law – anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.
Urban myth.
The proceeds are determined by the unit entitlements – the share/interest of each owner in the strata scheme is reflected in their unit entitlement, and that extends to the common property.
In terms of the legal position re common property – it’s complicated but basically the owners corporation holds the common property as a whole on trust for the owners, each owners’ interest in it being reflected in their unit entitlements.
So for example if you have a strata scheme with 10 owners all with equal entitlements and the property is sold for $10million net of costs, then each owner receives $1million.
It’s interesting that your units are different sizes but the same entitlements – but note that lot entitlements determined on value rather than size, or rather they are meant to be.
It isn’t a matter between the Council and the OC, it is a matter between the Council and the owner. The Council is responsible for administering the regulations, not the OC, and the Council enforces those regulations against the person who is doing the illegal act, i.e. the owner. They wouldn’t issue orders against the OC unless the OC was doing something illegal on the common property.
If the Council is told that the owner is using the area for an unapproved (illegal) purpose, it is then up to them to enforce their regulations. All kittycat needs to do is notify the Council that she is concerned that the owner is running a hairdressing salon out of their garage. Step away and watch what happens.
However – as I said previously, it becomes more complicated if the EC/OC are aware that someone is using a part of the scheme illegally and they do nothing about it. Strictly speaking – they should then notify the Council. If there is evidence that they are/were aware and something happens, then they could be held liable for any consequences. Also – it can void the OC’s insurance.
We had just that issue – we found out that an owner was using part of their lot illegally. The primary concerns for us were liability of the OC and the impact it would have on our insurance.
I think $850 a quarter is cheap, I’m trying to figure out how the scheme can run a budget on that amount, given what you have. The owners corporation has to pay for things like electricity, insurance, strata manager’s fees, water, maintenance of the common property. How much are you paying into the sinking fund?
If you removed the pool that would cost you money, a lot more money than you are paying now. Note also DaveB’s comments, the pool forms a component of the value of your apartment.
Yes there are a number of laws prohibiting this.
The issue is not so much whether it is a strata complex, but rather whether the use of the garage as a hairdressing salon is an approved use. In other words, the garage would have council approval to be used as a garage, not a hairdressing salon.
There are quite serious consequences where someone uses a building or part of a building in breach of its approved use – it is illegal and there are a number of considerations that flow from that. In this case, it is probably more serious because the person is using the garage for commercial purposes. It is highly likely that the Council would not give approval for its use as a salon, as there would be a number of requirements it would have to meet. Even before that, the strata would have to give permission for any application for the owner to use the garage as a hairdressing salon and I doubt that they would do that.
In terms of the strata, if it is aware that an area within the scheme is being used contrary to its approved use, and does nothing about it, then it can be held liable as well. I suggest you contact the Council and seek urgent advice and then advise the strata manager that this needs to be stopped.
Your gripe (if any) is with your friend – as you say, you left the bicycle in his care. It seems he didn’t take very good care of it.
In the circumstances you are lucky you are not being charged for removal of the bicycle, which shouldn’t have been on common property anyway.