Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Section 46 of the Act provides that the OC can pay a Committee member an amount determined by the OC at an annual general meeting in recognition of services performed by the person for the OC in the period since the last AGM (it’s retrospective).
The Committee does not have the power to pay a Committee member for services performed for the OC, that is a matter reserved to the owners in an AGM, section 36(3), and it has to be determined retrospectively. It doesn’t matter that the Committee has the power to spend funds up to a certain amount, the issue is they have paid a Committee member, and they don’t have the power to do that. So the payment to the Committee member is a breach.
As for the “continuing education”, you have to be kidding me.
No, it’s not a statute of limitations issue. The key thing is that when an owner does this type of work, the OC should make sure that they are only permitted to do the work on condition that they agree to an exclusive use by-law that passes responsibility for that work to the owner. In the absence of a by-law the OC is responsible.
If a by-law is in place, then any subsequent owners are bound by the by-law and it is clear who is responsible. An affected owner has to agree to the by-law, the OC can’t just unilaterally resolve to introduce one.
In a perfect world you could ask the owner to agree to a by-law, but it’s not a perfect world, and why would an owner agree to that? On the flip side, where someone has done work which is arguably part of the common property, the OC can resolve to remove it. In this case I don’t think they can do that – because a cistern is an essential service.
Note that the Committee does not have the power to introduce a by-law, only the owners can approve one, in a general meeting (subject to the affected owner agreeing).
If there is no by-law passing responsibility for the cistern to the owner of the lot, then it is the responsibility of the owners corporation.
If the cistern was inside the lot, then the answer would be different.
Has the engagement of the lawyer been approved, either by the Committee or the owners in a general meeting?
They would have to have received a costs agreement – I am assuming this is a non-urgent matter. The Committee can approve engaging a lawyer for non-urgent matters up to $3K. Otherwise it has to go to a general meeting.
So check what has been approved.
Taking into account that you can never be sure that NCAT will be sensible, I think it is highly unlikely that a Tribunal would set aside the special levy.
– the owners who object would have to have grounds for the objection – what are they? For example, is there a legal issue, were the owners’ rights overriden etc.
– the special levy is to enable the OC to fulfil its obligations under the Act to repair and maintain common property
– the Committee has undertaken a comprehensive process which formed the basis of the decision at the general meeting
– a majority of the owners has approved the special levy.
There would have to be a compelling reason to overturn a decision like this. Note that an individual owner’s circumstances such as their financial position is not a compelling reason.
Sadly there is very little you can do. A lady in the building next door to us was the same, it eventually came to a head when she set fire to the kitchen. Fortunately there were tradesmen working outside at the time and they put a hose through the window. This precipitated her move to a nursing home.
Section 4 of Schedule 1 is permissive, i.e. it allows an owner to submit a motion to be included on the agenda for a general meeting. This does not create a class, it just gives owners the avenue for inclusion of a motion.
There is nothing in the Schedule or the Act that prevents the Committee from including motions on the agenda. If it were the case that the Committee could not determine agenda items for a general meeting, there would be a lot of invalid resolutions, or rather short agendas.
Note section 36 sets out the two types of decision that cannot be made by the Committee.
As pointed out, by-laws permitting pets generally have provisions regarding the pet owner’s responsibility regarding any mess that the pet may make on common property. Our by-laws provide that the owner must clean it up, but it may be that the owner cannot be identified (in our building it is pretty easy).
In relation to the cleaner – the cleaner is employed by the cleaning company. The OC has a contract with the cleaning company. Cleaners are engaged by the OC to clean the property, and that may include unpleasant messes of various kinds. It is not a matter for the OC to deal with a cleaning contractor’s “rights”. If you feel that the cleaner should not be dealing with it, then who should?
Why don’t you try the cheap option and give an undertaking to the owner that if it doesn’t work you will proceed with hinge replacement?
General legal principles apply to this (this is not legal advice). The resolution takes effect at the time it is passed, unless the resolution specifically provides otherwise.
In certain circumstances you could have a resolution that provides that owners are not allowed to be paid for work, and also in respect of payments made to owners previously, those payments must be paid back. That second part would be very hard to enforce – not impossible but hard.
On the basis of what you have said the resolution only applies going forward.
Until the contract is settled the buyers have no right to attend a meeting or vote, because they are not the owners. The current owner could give them their proxy but that is up to them.
Note this situation is dealt with in the standard contract of sale. If the special levy is struck after the contract date, the purchaser is liable. Refer clause 23.6 of the standard contract.
A number of adjustments are made at settlement, such as council rates and regular levies.
Well yes, if the owner has not provided a full scope of the proposed chair lift, including drawings/sketches, engineer’s report, installation details, issues regarding impact on power supply e.g whether the current wiring can take the load, how the owner proposes to pay for the power, safety issues etc. the resolution is not sufficiently detailed, and therefore if I were at the meeting I would move that the motion not be put to the owners due to lack of sufficient information on which to base a decision. Given the lift is not even for the owner’s use I would also expect to see an undertaking that they would remove the lift when it is no longer needed. I suggest you tell the owner to withdraw the proposed motion.
The owner wants to install something for the exclusive use of their mother on common property, and from the information provided that is likely to have a significant impact on the other owners, including possible impact on the value of their property. Any proposal like this requires a special resolution, so bear in mind that if the proposal were voted on and 25% of the owners voted against it, then the proposal wouldn’t be approved.
Yes, the meeting can still go ahead. There is an issue where you want to add motions to a notice of meeting that has gone out, as the owners are required to have notice of any motions. You can always withdraw a motion, other than a motion that is required to be included under the Act. You can advise at the meeting that motions have been withdrawn.
I don’t know what the motions are, but for example if they were motions that had been put up by an owner, the owner may decide to withdraw them. (not sure why those motions would be the first three but anyway…)
This is dealt with in the standard contract of sale. The way it works is that where a special levy is struck (as distinct from your usual levies) on or before the contract date, the vendor is liable for it. If the special levy is struck after the contract date, the purchaser is liable. Refer clause 23.6 of the standard contract.
A number of adjustments are made at settlement, such as council rates and regular strata levies. Check your contract of sale.
Go to the bank. This is a mistaken payment, and there are processes to deal with it. The new owner does not have any right to keep the money.