Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Haven’t been on here in a while. I tend to think the same as Whale on this one. Since an EC has to be elected at every AGM, and the legislation uses the words the ‘Owners Corporation’ must appoint a person eligible to fill the vacancy, rather than the ‘Executive Committee’ must appoint a person eligible…etc.
Also if you hold an EGM to fill any vacancy in the EC, you avoid any potential disputes where owner/s can dispute that the right procedure was not followed as per the Act. Basically you can’t go wrong holding an EGM.
Completely agree with Whales comments. Sometimes you have to suck it up and move on with life. You are very lucky your Owners Corp took steps to fix this problem, in many other schemes this wouldn’t be the case where owners would have to pursue their Owners Corp for an order through the tribunal to get the work done.
There are no provisions in the current Strata laws that allow an owner to recover such compensation. Your claim would most probably lie outside of the scope of the Strata Act. Hence you would have to seek independent legal advice (yes spend thousands on a solicitor and make them rich) to recover a measly sum of money you may feel your owed.
I completely agree with Whale and Jimmy on this one. Bathroom leaks are by far the most common problem in our scheme, and many others from what I have heard of. It’s one of the most common renovations a new owner will carry out (apart from kitchen renos) to existing schemes. I doubt waterproofing issues are much of a problem in new schemes, I find it much more prevalent when an over zealous owner wants to rip out the original tiles and re waterproofs the bathroom when renovating. Whale, in our scheme owners who ask for permission to ‘renovate’ their bathrooms almost always rip out the existing tiles and waterproofing, what other renovations are you really going to do in a bathroom? Apart from changing vanities and toilets…
The law doesn’t say whether non-owners can attend AGMs and EGMs. I guess if the OC is happy having non-owners present at general meetings, it would be fine, however it would be a decision of the OC. Non-owners can vote if they are a duly appointed proxy and hold a valid proxy form from an owner who is entitled to vote. No, tenants/occupiers do not have the right to add motions on the agenda, only owners who are financial and entitled to vote can submit motions for inclusion onto the agenda of general meetings.
Thom – the strata manager has no obligations to just ‘pass on any complaint letters or info’ regardless of Rebekah’s ‘demands’. Rebekah would have to write to the strata manager requesting to inspect the records of the owners corporation. This would incur a fee of $31 for the first hour, however then Rebekah can seek any information the strata manager has in their possession, which should include any written correspondence between the complainer and the strata manager.
As per Whales advice, this is a strata matter. Tenants do have the right to complain directly to the strata manager, there is nothing in the Strata laws preventing this. Tenants are seen as ‘occupiers’ and have equal rights and obligations when it comes to abiding by the by-laws of the scheme. So the answer is NO, the tenants complaint is not invalid, its as valid an any owner making a complaint.
However regardless of whether you have been served an official ‘notice to comply’ or just a general warning letter, you need to think twice before escalating it, it may not be worth it. There is no need to ‘defend’ yourself, just move on is the best option in many cases.
I agree with you on this one Jimmy, too many owners buy into schemes and just want to get their way, so if they see a ‘no pets’ by law, they do whatever it takes to circumvent it. I think is a reflection of society in general where adults are turning into children because they aren’t getting what they want.
My gripe is with ‘Companion Animals’ in strata schemes. It is a part of the entitlement mentality of our society as a whole, where one thinks they are ‘entitled’ to whatever they want regardless of any by laws or what the majority of owners want. I am certainly not anti pet, I love animals, however if a scheme chooses no pets, then that’s what should apply and should be respected (apart from guide and hearing dogs as per s49 of the SSMA).
My friends scheme has this particular problem where certain owners who have bought in go and get a doctor to give them a certificate that they require an animal for a ‘companion’. Many of those who claim they need an ‘companion’ animal actually just want a pet, but don’t want to call it that. What happened to the days of getting a human ‘companion’ like a friend or someone of the opposite sex? As controversial as that is, that is what I have found from my experience and from others who live in strata schemes.
If your agreement is with a Strata Managing agency or corporation then its up to the company which strata manger they appoint to your scheme. Your agreement would be with the company not an individual strata manager within that company. You have to check your agency agreement to determine who your agreement is/was with, sounds very confusing.
The rest of your enquiry I can’t comment on as it makes little sense and is all over the place.
It really doesn’t matter who puts forward any new Strata Manager at the EGM as long as there is a motion on the agenda to appoint that managing agent. There is no restrictions on who within the OC can put forward a Strata Manager, any owner entitled to vote can submit a motion on the agenda of an EGM, that includes to appoint a new managing agent.
I don’t think you need a special ‘committee’ to obtain quotes from various strata managers, the EC can certainly do that. Just remember it will be up to all of the owners at the EGM as to which Managing Agent is chosen. In my view forming an ‘independent committee’ may be pointless, as the EC or any owner can recommend a Strata Manager.
I can’t determine whether the floor boards in this case are common property or not, generally if they are floating floor boards they will be your responsibility as they may not form a part of the original floor structure. Hence if the OC refuses to compensate you for the damage you will need independent legal advice, it may be a civil claim for compensation through a local court; which is outside of the scope of the SSMA 1996.
In the event of a bingle both parties would need to get independent legal advice as this would be a civil matter. The strata laws don’t go into liability if such an event occurs. If you believe that the OC would be responsible because it failed to enforce the by laws, this would still be civil legal action you would need to take against the OC, as such compensation would be outside the scope of the SSMA 1996.
I would suggest to let both owners simply work it out between themselves. There isn’t much the OC can do without concrete evidence of a breach of by law. The OC most probably wouldn’t stand a chance at the tribunal; so far it sounds like 1 owners word against another (hearsay). Even if the OC issued a section 45 breach notice, taking the matter further may be pointless without some evidence of excessive noise. You should direct both owners to take the matter through mediation and adjudication if necessary, it will then be on they’re onus to prove these allegations to the adjudicator or tribunal.
Whale has made a really good point there, you should check the wiring of those power points, its high likely that if every lot has one, then it may be connected to that lots power mains rather than to the common property switch/mains.
Another option is to try and create a by law for the usage of these power points if they are fed through common property. The by law could provide for annual charges to owners who wish to use common property power for their own purposes (similar suggestion to Whales).
Well there isn’t all that many options. The OC simply have to repair and maintain common property as per s62 of the SSMA. If you don’t have a sinking fund plan there isn’t much that can be done about that now in hindsight (apart from starting a 10 year fund plan).
However if you don’t have enough money in either the sinking or admin fund and the repairs need to be done ASAP, then you will need to call a general meeting to raise a special levy to cover the costs of the repairs. However before you raise the special levy, it would be a good idea to get at least 3 quotes to put forward on the agenda of the general meeting and have the OC decide which quote to accept.
Jimmy I never said that you’re ‘wrong’. I am just giving my point of view that’s all. You could well be right, I just see that if something isn’t currently there in existence, then it can be interpreted as being ‘adding’ to common property. Whether the structure is permanent or not does not matter, and the Act does not specify whether the structure is to be permanent or not.
Under 65A is does say ‘For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property’. To me adding anything to common property (that isn’t a part of repairs and maintenance) comes under s65A. Pot plants in my view are improving or enhancing (beautifying) the common property, hence would not come under repairs or maintenance s62.
I guess I take this view from living in a Strata Scheme for many years, there is always one owner or a group of owners who do not want to spend a cent on ‘improving or enhancing’ any part of common property. They don’t see the value in it, which I am against, as it can clearly enhance the value of the scheme.
Section 65A of the SSMA. Has to be ratified at an AGM or EGM.