Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Just to clarify, the way it works is that where proxies are required to be lodged prior to a meeting or at the commencement of the meeting, further proxies can’t be lodged after adjournment of the meeting and prior to the adjourned meeting.
So if you attended the meeting, you could provide a proxy for the purposes of the adjourned meeting, provided you gave it before the meeting was adjourned.
I agree with Jimmy that the CTTT would be unlikely to reverse decisions where the resolutions are just standard, and kiwipaul is right, we are not talking about earth-shattering decisions in most cases.
However, it is not a good practice, and I don’t think the CTTT would be happy if the resolutions were more substantive ones, such as a resolution to carry out major building works, a resolution to engage a lawyer and commence legal proceedings, or a resolution to make a special by-law.
It isn’t stupid – it provides certainty. There has to be a cut-off point for proxies, pretty much all notices of meeting provide for that, i.e. proxies to the manager prior to commencement, if someone comes to the meeting they can bring it with them. The adjourned meeting is a continuation of the original meeting so you can’t restart the clock in terms of proxies.
I am not so sure of the numbers, but how many adjourned meetings are there?
Going back to the original query, the manager has got it completely wrong. There was no quorum, so unless enough people attend in person at the adjourned meeting there will again be no quorum and no meeting, which is what JGOWI said at the outset.
Yes – but you have to give them to the Chair at the commencement of the meeting. That way you can figure out if you have a quorum.
That’s right – an adjourned meeting isn’t a new meeting, it’s a continuation of the one that was adjourned.
The law is that where proxies are required to be lodged before the time of a meeting, further proxies can’t be lodged after an adjournment of the meeting and prior to the adjourned meeting. (this is settled law) Any proxies put in after the adjournment are not valid.
So you either turn up at the adjourned meeting and vote, or nothing.
That’s right – their insurance, their excess.
Gosh some strata managers try it on.
I do have issues with resolutions being put up with insufficient detail and perhaps that is how you need to tackle it.
If a resolution has been put up for an EGM with plans, they have managed to get the plans done and go to the trouble of calling an EGM.
First question – why does an EGM have to be called, what is so urgent about it?
Second – if they have the time to do the plans, why can’t they get quotes? If there is no quote, are you approving the plans in principle, subject to receipt of the quotes? On the face of it, that is what it sounds like.
Third – if the EC has the quote/quotes then to me that calls into question validity of any resolution, as proper notice has not been given to all owners, including those owners who won’t or can’t attend the meeting. You can’t just pull the quote out at the meeting and say here it is, because a number of people may provide proxies on the basis on what was sent to them.
Does the resolution provide for approval of the works and the expenditure? They are two separate things. I don’t believe it could, because there is no quote provided with the notice.
I suggest you have a few avenues:
– move a motion to amend the resolution at the meeting, that the project be approved in principle, subject to receipt of quotes and approval of the amount to be spent on it by the owners at a general meeting
– is there any limit on the EC’s expenditure that has been set at a previous meeting? If there is and it is less than the amount they propose to spend, then they can’t proceed without approval of the amount at a general meeting.
– get out there, grit your teeth, find enough owners to get more than 25% of the vote, and do something about it.
More generally – I agree with PeterC. We had our AGM the other night. Setting aside the brawl between 2 owners at the end, it was remarkably uneventful. I had put up a number of special resolutions for by-laws that I thought would not get up but they did, because no-one read them and only a third of owners attended. In my own experience, “lack of consultation” often means – “I don’t like it”, taking into account that a matter has been before both a general meeting and numerous EC meetings, of which the complainant is a member.
Maybe it was “the vibe”.
(refer The Castle)
I think there has been quite detailed discussion re privacy before, but just to clarify in relation to what Jimmy said here:
The Privacy act alluded to basically only applies to government handling of your information plus organisations that have agreed to a set of privacy protocols.The Privacy Act applies to private sector organisations/businesses with a turnover of $3million or more, it is not limited to Government agencies. It may also apply to an operation with a turnover of less than $3million in specific circumstances.
Refer here:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-topics/business-and-small-business/small-business
In many cases strata managers are bound by the Privacy Act and must comply with its requirements.
Your name is not personal information of itself. Refer here:
https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/what-is-covered-by-privacy
The thing is, you aren’t the strata manager’s client, the Owners Corporation is. It is sometimes a fuzzy distinction but the strata manager is contracted to and acts on behalf of the OC. Any communications he receives, he receives in that capacity, i.e. as agent for the OC.
As I said previously, if you want a communication with the manager (or anyone else) to remain confidential, then you should clearly indicate that, for example by heading an email “confidential” and in the text stating that it is not to be circulated to anyone else. There is no such thing as “automatic confidentiality”, and even if you take the steps I mention you can’t guarantee that confidentiality will be maintained unless the other party agrees to it.
In terms of other information the manager might have, it depends on what it is, for example personal information is covered by legislation such as the Privacy Act and the manager is bound by that. A Code of Conduct is not really worth much of itself, if the manager is actually bound by one.
The manager’s use of the word “entitled” is questionable, that word is bandied about a bit too much these days. I wouldn’t say he was entitled, but he hasn’t done anything wrong in the strictest sense.
However – he sounds like a prat, the real issue is that you have a complaint about him, he didn’t like it, so he went running to the EC because he wants it retracted, rather than deal with the actual issue. The person who is looking like a fool is him.
It is my understanding (anyone feel free to correct me) that if the OC is replacing/repairing common property, then the common property has to be repaired/replace to the same standard.
For example – I live in a pre-War building with very nice decorative ceilings. One of those ceilings requires replacement. I have the right to require that the ceiling is replaced like for like, as distinct from it being replaced with a plain ceiling.
In the case of the tiles – this divides into two elements – the standard/quality of the tiles and the appearance of the tiles. If the tiles that the owners corporation is proposing to use are not the same standard/quality as the tiles previously used, or won’t serve the purpose they are meant to, then I believe you can object to that. Appearance is another matter, and that is something you have to negotiate.
Your dealings/communication are not confidential unless you specifically state they are, same as in any other circumstance.
That said, the manager’s actions asking for retraction are a bit silly – better to deal with the actual complaint.
It sounds like your EC is overstepping the mark. That said, cockatoos can be a real nuisance as they have a habit of eating/destroying window sills, railings and the like which is very expensive to fix.
Mind you, I love kookaburras.
I couldn’t agree more with just get on with it. Strata finance companies aren’t lending money out of the goodness of their hearts and the interest rates are relatively high. In terms of cost of money, it is usually cheaper and more efficient for each owner to raise the money themselves, and the OC isn’t carrying the loan on its books.
That would drive me bananas. My neighbour beneath me has a habit of slamming doors when she has a fight with her partner, I wish she wouldn’t. (yes I have asked her not to, but she is hotheaded and “forgets”)
However – in terms of your neighbour who has taken to opening and slamming his door every time the other neighbours slam the front door – is just being stupid, he’s not helping solve the problem. Can’t you speak to him and tell him to stop?
Has anyone spoken to the jerks slamming the front door?
Statute law will override, modify and/or replace common law, to the extent that Parliament intends it. That is the purpose of statute law. If it wasn’t, I am not sure why we would have a Strata Schemes Management Act that says the things it does.
So – trespass is a civil wrong. The Act says that the OC can enter into someone’s lot in certain circumstances. If those circumstances apply, then put simply, there is no trespass, because the Act allows it. That is the purpose of the section. In terms of the Tribunal and/or adjudicators – they are given powers to make certain orders under the Act which includes the power to order that an owner provide access to a lot. That overrides any right the owner may have at common law.
I am not sure what PMC means by if the owner didn’t consent and the CTTT made an order it would still be trespass, that is just plain wrong.