Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
In answer to one part of your question, it isn’t trespass because the tenants let them in.
As the EC members have no qualifications, it is back to square one. Write a letter and advise them you expect a proper inspection to be made by a qualified person at a time agreed by you/the tenants.
Clause 9 of Schedule 2 of the Act provides that a person is not entitled to move a motion or nominate a person for election to the EC unless they are entitled to vote on the motion or at the election.
Clause 10 para 8 provides that an owner can’t vote if contributions haven’t been paid.
Clause 10 deals with entitlement to vote. So the cumulative effect of the two is that if you are non-financial you can’t nominate someone to the EC.
A non-financial owner can’t nominate themselves or anyone else to the EC. Making a nomination and being on the EC are two different things. Nomination is like voting, you have to be financial to do it. The issue is whether the owner making the nomination is financial.
once someone is on the EC they may become non-financial but that doesn’t prevent them from voting in their capacity as an EC member.
Lucky door prizes?
Even if you could do it, the thing about a discount is it is illusory. Say you work out the budget for the year and it is $10,000, i.e. you need $10,000 to meet expenses etc. So you have to raise $10,000 in levies. If you set that budget and everyone gets a 10% discount then you will only raise $9000 and you will have a $1000 shortfall.
Therefore if there is a discount available you factor that into the budget, which you then have to set at a higher figure.
Going back to your friends’ issues, in the case of the one where the other 11 owners don’t attend/vote at meetings, perhaps the best option is for your friend to apply for appointment of a compulsory strata manager, on the grounds that the OC isn’t meeting its section 62 obligations.
Your other friend may also have that option, depending on the state of the building.
Setting aside the tax question, the OC/EC needs to resolve to put any money in an interest bearing account, or invest it in another way, it is not up to the strata manager unless the y have delegated power.
i knew of an OC who traded their funds on a forex account. I thought that was very brave….
And the answer to your question re keeping the proxy farmer off the EC, is yes, that is how you do it.
In answer to your second question, can other owners vote against someone being on the EC, that depends on the number of members of the EC, as determined by the owners at the AGM.
You can have up to 9 members of an EC. The owners have to vote how many they want on the EC, and that can be any number up to 9. For example, if the EC decides that the EC should have 5 members and there are 6 people nominating to be on the EC, then it comes down to a vote. The person who gets the least votes will not be on the EC.
That is slightly different from voting against someone, what you are doing is voting for someone else in preference to them.
If the owners determine that there should be 7 members of the EC, and 7 members nominate, there is no need for a vote and they are all EC members.
If you want to keep someone off the EC, what you can do is agree with other owners to have a certain number whereby you know that you can exclude a certain person who may wish to nominate, providing you are certain you have the votes. That is what Jimmy is referring to, and I agree however, it can work both ways. We have one owner here who is a total pain in the neck, and having him on the EC would be an absolute nightmare.
I think the issue is not what it covers, but rather in what circumstances those items are covered.
The strata insurance covers rebuilding of a lot including replacement of fixtures in certain circumstances such as a fire. It isn’t responsible for damage to cupboards, internal doors etc. which occurs outside those circumstances.
I’m a bit confused as to why someone would expect the strata to pay for something that they damaged/broke, but what would I know.
No – what you do is apply for an order to rectify the problem. So assuming the order was made, it would be along the lines of the owners having to lay carpet, or to take up the floorboards and instal the appropriate underlay etc. The kind of order made may depend on the building and how it is constructed.
If the owners then fail to comply then you would be seeking a fine for that failure to comply. That is separate from rectification of the problem, because you want them to fix it.
I think one of the principal reasons for that is that there are many ECs who are not aware of what their by-laws say, or if/when they look at them, they don’t know what they mean. So in this example the EC may well think that the by-law gives them the right to simply refuse permission for an animal.
You can’t write a by-law requiring the CTTT to do something like remove an animal. The CTTT isn’t a party to the by-laws, and they don’t have the power to remove an animal. They can issue an order on an application for an animal to be removed, but that’s the limit.
ICW’s rights are governed by her lease/tenancy agreement. For a start, I am assuming that ICW is a party to the lease with the landlord. If the lease is only with her housemate, then different considerations apply.
The lease would include the right to use the garage, in that the apartment has been rented out with the garage included. If ICW can’t access the garage because he/she doesn’t have a remote control, then he/she needs to demand that a remote control be provided by the landlord so they can have access to the garage.
This is presuming that the lease doesn’t provide that the tenants have the right to use the garage and they will be provided with one remote control for that purpose.
A few years ago I helped a friend of mine who had a similar problem and drafted a letter for her to the letting agent setting out that without being given means of access to the garage, the landlord was in breach of the lease. The key in that case was provided very quickly.
The same consideration applies to the gate. If your lease gives you certain rights or implies them, then not being provided with the code for the gate is a breach of the lease, in that you are not able to do something you are paying for under the tenancy agreement.
In the case of the visitors’ parking spaces, that depends on a number of factors including whether it is set out or implied in the lease, and whether the apartment that you occupy comes with the right to use those spaces. If it does, then it would be reasonable to say that you do have the right to use a space because those rights go with the apartment. The same would apply if you rented an apartment in a building that had a gym, and you needed a key to get into the gym – the landlord should supply that key.
Your avenue is with the landlord and their agent (not the strata), because that is who you have the agreement with. You need to assert the rights in that agreement and if they don’t provide them, tell them that they are in breach of the terms of the contract.
I am no expert on company title either, but with company title you do not have title to any real estate, what you have is ownership of shares in the company that owns the real estate.
Those shares will give you entitlement to occupy a defined area in the real estate owned by the company. Therefore, you need to look at the share document you have and/or the constitution of the company to work out whether you do have entitlement to use the roof space.
As a general observation, don’t ever rely on what someone tells you is yours, check whether you legally have that entitlement.
In the case of the young couple, the same applies, unless they have a right to use that space, then they have to play by the same rules as you. If it is property owned by the company with no rights for any of the shareholders, then you would need to get a form of approval to use it (e.g. a licence).
If there is no by-law, there is nothing they can do.
If there is a by-law, they would have to issue a notice to comply.