Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
On the basis of what you say, the construction/design of the grates is defective. If the EC has that kind of attitude, then perhaps you need to up the ante slightly.
If they don’t agree to do it, say to them that they actually have an obligation to fix it under section 62, and if they do not fix it you will make an application to the CTTT for an order to compel them to do so.
The fact that they put carpet strips under the grates means that they have recognised there is a problem, and that helps your case.
Assuming the land is owned by the co-op, say someone built something on that land without permission, then the co-op as a whole owns it.
It is not a very good idea to do that sort of thing.
Check the by-laws, if you don’t have them call the strata manager and ask them for a copy.
Unless it is specifically in the by-laws then you can leave your washing there for as long as you like.
What a silly rule.
In the unlikely event that it is in the by-laws, then the way to change it is by special resolution at a general meeting, in which case you would need to get substantial support from other owners so you got the requisite 75% vote at the meeting.
You are allowed even numbers on an EC, it just makes things difficult. You may have resolved to have only uneven numbers on the EC.
Back to your question, you effectively now have a vacancy on your EC. So strictly speaking what you need to do is declare a vacancy on the EC and call for nominations. The original voted in member can nominate to fill the vacancy and that will be fine. If someone else also nominates, then strictly speaking it should go to a vote of the OC. There have been discussions about this before, this is very unwieldy, and personally I think a vote of the EC should suffice.
I think you’re right Whale, the admin and sinking funds are used for different purposes and a special levy is not the correct way to do it.
A special levy is to meet a future expense that has not been otherwise budgeted for, this could be a range of things, but here administration expenses from the previous year exceeded what was budgeted, i.e. they are replenishing funds already spent.
If the admin fund was short and had to be topped up from the sinking fund, then this suggests that the budgeting for the scheme hasn’t been done very well, $40,000 is a significant shortfall.
What they should be doing is just raising the levies for the coming year and making the $40,000 component payable in the next levy payment. That is different from a special levy. People often get confused about what a special levy is, and this situation demonstrates that.
No, they’re not inconsistent.
Shareholders of a company can’t vote on behalf of the company in that capacity, and beneficiaries of a trust can’t vote on behalf of a trust in that capacity. This makes sense because a company can have numerous shareholders, and a trust may have many beneficiaries.
In both cases a shareholder or beneficiary can be appointed/authorised to vote on behalf of the company or trust. For a company that would be the person nominated to act on behalf of the company. For a trust, it could be a person authorised to exercise certain powers of the trustee, who is the entity/person who can exercise the right to vote.
Note that for a trust you can have either a corporate trustee or a natural person who is the trustee. In the former case, the authorised representative of the company would be able to vote on behalf of the trust.
Your Executive Committee meetings must be interesting!
I don’t think you can call a GM, because you won’t have a quorum if only you attend.
In the circumstances, it might be an option for you to find another strata manager, and then apply to the CTTT for an order for a compulsory strata manager. It sounds like you have a basis for saying that the OC isn’t functioning satisfactorily.
That’s right – but the owners can determine the number of people on the EC, it doesn’t have to be 9, that’s just the maximum. So you can move a motion that the number be X, and go from there. If there is disagreement then the number with the most votes is the number.
I agree with Jimmy, 7 in a block of 16 is unwieldy. We have 5 in a block of 9 and I think that is too many.
To me, the guiding principle is what is in the interests of the owners corporation as a whole, i.e. the owners as a collective. So:
– if you have a by-law in relation to pets requiring that permission be obtained, permission should be obtained. That permission should not be unreasonably withheld, if that is how the by-law works. This gives all the owners certainty.
If you are in a small building with a common courtyard, then it may be unreasonable for someone to keep three great danes.
– if someone wants to do work that affects the common property, they must seek permission from the OC, and a by-law be put in place. This protects the interests of the other owners.
– if someone wants to do renovations that don’t affect common property, then they should notify the OC and seek permission in relation to the hours of work and tradesmen accessing the property. They should also provide an assurance that the works they are undertaking do not affect the common property.
– by-laws in relation to parking areas should be enforced consistently for everyone across the board.
Going back to ccbaxter’s question, the problem with flexibility is it means different things to different people. The fish example is just silly. If an EC/OC applies the by-laws consistently they promote certainty and protect the interests of the owners as a whole. If a by-law is considered unreasonable or pointless, then the owners can change it or get rid of it.
What they are proposing is that they be given exclusive use of part of the common property. That can’t be granted by the EC, it has to be voted on at a general meeting.
They are essentially asking to be given a piece of land, for nothing. The answer to both your questions is a definite no.
You have to rely on the name of the owner registered on the strata roll. In a case where the person registered on the strata roll is deceased, then the question is whether a person is authorised to act on behalf of the estate. If the name of the owner has not changed to reflect that they are deceased, you would also need to see evidence that they are, such as a certified copy of the death certificate. For a start, the relative can’t just submit a proxy from “The Estate of…” unless she has documentary evidence of a) the death and b) that she is authorised to act on behalf of the estate.
There is a difference between being authorised to act on behalf of an estate/exercising the rights attaching to the property of the estate and being able to deal with the assets of an estate. Dealing with property encompasses things such as selling it or mortgaging it. Voting or giving a proxy is not “dealing” with property, it is exercising certain rights attaching to the property.
You may be authorised to act on behalf of an estate (essentially standing in the shoes of the deceased person) before probate has been granted – this may be way of court order etc. This would allow the person to do things such as exercise the right to vote. In that scenario what you need to see is documentary evidence of that authorisation. Note that a statutory declaration from the person would not be sufficient, you would need to see something like a court order/evidence of appointment.
An analogy is where someone has a power of attorney, and in that case you would need to see the documents related to that, including evidence that the power of attorney had not been revoked. (a power of attorney lapses when the grantor dies, so it doesn’t apply here).
Re trusts – all that Schedule 2 para 10(7) means is that where a lot is held by a trustee on behalf of a trust, a beneficiary of the trust can’t vote. That is quite normal, and doesn’t deprive anyone – if it were any other way you could have a very confusing situation, with a number of beneficiaries wanting to vote. It is the trustee who is entitled to vote, because they are the one who hold the lot on trust for the beneficiaries. They have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the trust as a whole. Note that an executor of an estate is in a similar position, but trusts can take a number of forms.
It’s infuriating but as Jimmy has suggested previously, you need to move on. The Chair did not do what you think they should have done and subsequently looked after their own interests. We often get let down by our expectations of other people.
Perhaps you need to look at getting a strata manager as a buffer between the owners.
Ordinarily I would expect the strata manager to handle the insurance claim process, am not sure how it works with your OC. However if the Chair offered to put all the quotes in, then I would expect them to do that.
If the Chair got a fully renovated bathroom plus repairs to the bedroom for under $3500 that is cheap. I am not sure what you mean re something funny going on – they didn’t cause the leak, if I had water pouring into my lot for seven hours I would be pretty alarmed.
I don’t agree with Whale’s position (which is very unusual), because the legislation refers to amounts recoverable from the owner. Without going into all sorts of legal technicalities, I don’t beiieve that this invoice would fall into that category. In that respect I would distinguish it from say, a court order to the effect that an owner has to pay an amount, or an agreement between the owner and the OC that the owner will pay something (e.g. an owner has agreed to pay maintenance costs for a part of common property for which they have exclusive use). What you would be looking for in terms of an amount recoverable from an owner, is a debt for which they are liable in legal terms.
If the OC could raise invoices against owners for miscellaneous repairs etc., you would open the door to abuse. I don’t think that is the intent of the legislation, which is badly drafted. As SlapShot has pointed out, it is ridiculous that he/she can have an invoice sent to him/her, and then be told it is not open to discussion.
SlapShot – it is up to you what you do, and also whether you want to spend time on disputing it. If you pay the invoice you are accepting responsibility, and of course the OC may do it again, e.g. claim that your tenants have damaged common property.