Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Gosh, I thought we were doing badly with the owner who since October has sent us nearly 200 emails on the one topic. A lot of those emails have been abusive, make outrageous claims and I think are bordering on defamatory. Stating that EC members are mentally ill is not very nice.
In the end we advised the matter was closed and would not enter into any further correspondence. Aside from anything else, it was taking up hours of the strata manager’s time.
Sadly there is no law against being a pain in the neck, and of course there shouldn’t be, as the test is subjective. However, at present the CTTT has no power to determine/declare that a person is a vexatious litigant, and there is only limited scope to award costs against a party. While these sorts of powers should be exercised with great caution, I believe this is an issue that deserves attention.
In relation to Jimmy’s suggestion to issue a notice to comply with the legislation, I don’t believe an owners corporation can do that, as it only applies to by-laws. I do know of at least one OC where the strata manager had to have police present at meetings because two owners had become violent over a long-running dispute. The dispute was in relation to…a doormat.
The OP’s neighbour is trying it on, what a load of twaddle. What would they do if the common property walls were painted?
You have done nothing wrong, rather I think you have done everything you need to have done, i.e. letting the neighbours know beforehand etc.
Someone recently moved into our block and without telling anyone launched into pretty full scale renovations – no notice, no sorry for the inconvenience and noise, building materials dumped in the front garden, nothing. One night at about 9.30 I smelt something funny and before long my eyes and nose were streaming from the worst varnish fumes I have ever smelt. I have no idea what was being used, but I went into the foyer and couldn’t stay there the fumes were so bad, and I live two floors up from him. I very much doubt that was the case here.
The smell dissipated over a couple of days but we were very cross with him for a number of reasons – he didn’t let us know, he chose to have it done at night and whatever varnish was used was revolting. However, none of us would have made a claim against him.
Whale is right – but it may be that the former Chair was not properly nominated for election to the Committee, based on what you have said.
Giving a proxy and nominating someone for the Committee are two separate things, if only a proxy to vote was given then there was no valid nomination. A proxy only allows someone to vote on matters at the AGM, not to nominate for the EC. It’s a common misunderstanding that a proxy can also be used to nominate.
As Whale has said, the minutes should say who gave the proxy, that is standard. If the strata manager won’t give you those details you may have to put more pressure on him/her. You need to ask both for the proxy and the written nomination, presuming the nominating owner wasn’t at the meeting.
We also used Precision when we put in our floors some years ago. We were and are very happy, there is no point in using cheap outfits for something like that. We were paranoid about the noise issue to the extent of jumping up and down on the partly installed floor to check if our downstairs neighbour was happy. We haven’t had any problems and the floor is beautiful!
Oh well done, that is great news!
And thank you for the update.
Happy Christmas to everyone and personally I hope 2013 will be better because 2012 has been awful for us! Some strata legislation and a sensible Tribunal that makes sense would be lovely…ever the optimist.
I think it does matter, because the number of members of the EC is set at the AGM. So if someone steps down/resigns, the number stays the same but you are one member short. So if you need to have a quorum, the number of members you need is determined by the number of members set at the AGM, e.g. 5 members, three for a quorum. This can create problems, e.g. if you have a meeting and only two people turn up.
I have raised the issue before re how an EC member is appointed if someone drops out, I think the legislation is defective, as it doesn’t make sense to have to call a general meeting to appoint someone to a casual vacancy, which is what the legislation suggests.
I agree with Jimmy, I think you are being strung along and it is time to step up the pressure. You don’t really say what the role of the EC has been in all of this, did they refuse to intervene?
In relation to the mediator – it is made clear when you go to mediation that the mediator cannot take sides or even express an opinion, so if that is what the mediator is doing perhaps they need to be reminded of that.
There is no way I would be agreeing to pay the costs of laying carpet, you’re right – why should you paying to rectify something that shouldn’t have been done in the first place!
In answer to your question Felix where the CTTT makes an order to appoint a compulsory managing agent, no ratification by the OC is necessary, it is out of their hands, refer below.
I think we had the same managing agent in Crows Nest as Paul2000, they were a disaster. I won’t go into what occurred, but the ramifications of one of their misdeeds are still being dealt with two years on. Prior to that we had a sole operator in the Eastern suburbs who lied to us, and before that a very large, very well known organisation, also disastrous.
We now have a small independent outfit based in Mascot and we are very happy with them – they are professional and honest, and to me that is very important.
On the subject of applying for an order to appoint a compulsory managing agent – the hurdles for granting this type of order are high, because in doing that the CTTT is removing basic property rights. You need to satisfy the Tribunal that the owners corporation is not functioning, i.e. that is unable or unwilling to make decisions necessary for the proper functioning of the OC, which may include compliance with the Act. Examples include where the OC is not meeting/refusing to meet its obligations under section 62. It isn’t enough to say that you don’t like how it is functioning, or you are unhappy with decisions that it has made.
An order can take a number of forms and give a range of powers – so the CTTT may decide that the appointed agent is to take on all the functions of the EC, in which case they can unilaterally decide to undertake works, or they may decide that the agent only has the powers of the owners corporation for matters such as setting levies. The CTTT does like to have options for appointment of an agent, so you may need to provide the name of more than one, three is a good number.
None of the above is legal advice, I have never been in the position of having to make this kind of application but have had experience of it in another context!
Oops that is because I changed my email address….
Well done Whale, my first thought was if only you could be on the Tribunal, you would make a great member.
The only thing I would query is the addition of nearly $200 to the original debt collection fee. It is difficult to say as we don’t know how overdue the levies were etc., but it seems excessive.
There are a number of strata management companies who have a side business doing debt collection, and they make a lot of money. From what I have seen, I think some of their practices are dubious, but that is just my opinion. They need to be very careful when they label something as a legal fee, because legal fees have special characteristics.
Re fees generally – the courts have recently been considering the imposition of fees by banks for a range of things, and the central issue is – were those fees reasonably incurred, i.e. can the fee be justified? For example, charging a $30 overdraft fee may not be reasonable if it doesn’t reflect the costs to the bank. So that is the only aspect where I differ from Whale, as it is possible that the additional amount may not be justified.
If you wanted to make an issue of it, you could challenge it in a local tribunal/court, the question is, is it worth it?
No they can’t. Money owed (or in dispute as owing) in relation to specific items, e.g. repairs to common property for damage down by an owner, do not form part of the levies. So if an owner is invoiced for something like that, and they don’t pay it, the OC can seek to enforce it by normal channels but it doesn’t come under the category of levies. For example, if that amount went unpaid but the levies had been paid, then the owner would be financial.
You seem to be saying that you have disputed whether or not you are liable for this amount. In that case the managing agent did not have the right to apply your levy payment to that invoice. They don’t need to consult with the EC, they should just reverse it in their books, which is easily done.
Also any interest accrued in respect of the unpaid levies should be reversed.
Excuse the philosophical rant, as Francis of Assisi’s prayer goes:
Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
the courage to change the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.
You could spend every waking hour noting infractions of the by-laws, sending furious emails to the strata manager and EC and demanding action. But this doesn’t encourage harmonious community living, or take into account that everyone is human. I do things that people don’t like, and there are lots of things others do that annoy me, but by and large you just get on with your life. I have better things to do with mine.
We are currently dealing with someone who is furious because he believes we have been unfair. This person has damaged common property and done a range of things that demonstrate absolutely no consideration for others. We have focused on the major issues and let certain other things slide, but we are insistent that they must rectify the breaches we consider to be significant. In return they send countless emails reporting us for putting washing on our balconies, which is not a breach, and other petty imagined issues. It is very sad, and I wonder why someone like that chose to live in a community situation.
Oh darn, now I am going to torture myself wondering what the word was. Oh well.
Yes, entertainment!
Yes – the agreement would still be valid. That is assuming it was valid initially, in that the EC members had the authority to execute on behalf of the OC. So there would have been a resolution of the OC for that.