[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy is correct when he writes that every lot owner should be allowed to view recorded footage and that it’s wise to include a by law on the issue of CCTV.

A very interesting and comprehensive article on this issue was published in May 2021. Please see https://picagroup.com.au/article/enhancing-community-living/cctv-cameras-on-your-strata-property/

This may be the article Jimmy came across.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

I can’t tell you what the law is regarding this, but by way of example, some years ago a strata I am involved with had a person come around on a regular basis for general cleaning.

One owner asked the committee if instead of paying the cleaner, could he be paid to do the straight forward job instead. He offered to do it at roughly 20% cheaper than the contractor.

The committee at the time advised that in theory there is no problem paying an owner or tenant to do the work but one committee member was strongly against it in case the owner/tenant had an accident and she reasoned, the OC would be liable for compensation as opposed to a self insured contractor, where the OC would not be liable. Owners were at the time unsure if this argument had merit, but nobody was too interested in pushing for the change from contractor to owner/resident, so the matter died and the (external) person hired to clean still has the job.

In the event that you do get your way and an owner/tenant is paid per episode of “bin duty”, I think it is best that payment (whatever it is) be made directly by the strata committee to the person(s)  rather than having a contra to the levies because the paying for “bin duty” is an expense of the OC and should be reflected accurately in the accounts. And for the owner/tenant that money is income.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply. I will follow your advice about securing a copy of the minutes and will look out for any mention  about obtaining quotes. The agent indicated to me that the SC did not give him a time frame for a tradesman to be engaged or for the work to be done by the SC. I will query that issue with the Sec if a time frame is not included in the  minutes.

[TrulEConcerned]

My apologies. I did not mean to hijack any topic. I was unaware of the protocol in posting. Thanks to your reply, I am now much more aware of the proper etiquette.

You write that

 owners are entitled to see all minutes and correspondence created or received by their strata scheme with the possible exclusion of correspondence between the scheme and its lawyers in a matter concerning that specific owner (and even that could be subject to challenge).

I understand that owners are entitled to see all created minutes. But what if the SC decided to spend money on R&M (as the agent told me) but chose not to create  a document ie.e not to minute that decision – the meeting was said to have been a phone call – can an owner insist on the decision be minuted and then ask to see it?

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Good day to all,

The managing agent emailed me that the strata committee decided to engage a tradesman to repair common property that is damaged and inspect other items of common property and repair them as required. Some 7 months after I asked for the repairs!

Must such a decision of the SC to repair common property be minuted?

If so, do I have a right to see the minutes, as some of the common property was the subject of mediation between the OC and me or can my request be ignored/dismissed by the SC  and agent?

Please advise. Thank you.

[TrulEConcerned]

Ask the managing agent for copies of the invoices for the $1,309.00 and $11,715.00. Look out for the gaps I found when I faced  a similar issue in my strata. While I got the invoices they were scant on detail:

* No exact date of when the person attended (just the month)

* No details as to what exactly was done

* No details as to who was sent by the cleaning company

* No mention who on the committee inspected the work claimed to have been performed and approved payment.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy’s suggestion of filing a

complaint to Fair Trading about the strata manager, seeking disciplinary action under Section 191(c) of the Property and Stock Agents Act in that they have “in the course of carrying on business acted unlawfully, improperly, unfairly or incompetently.”

is vert good.

I did just this a month ago, but so far heard nothing back from FT.

This type of complaint targets the agent himself (not the strata committee or OC) and should, when confronted by FT, focus the agent’s attention on what you consider to be his bad behaviour. As Jimmy writes, the compliant mechanism is online. It is also simple and costs nothing. What I found interesting is that at the end of the form the complainant is asked “what do you want to happen to the agent”. Here you can reply “fine him; strip him of his licence etc”

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy wrote:

Fruitzebra doesn’t need to raise an item on the agenda – it’s already there, in the discussion about and approval (or otherwise) of the budget.

What they really need to do is examine the budget in detail before the meeting and then propose amendments at the meeting, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

True, the item is on the agenda and a discussion can be had if someone speaks up at the AGM. However, in my experience, owners who may agree with the fundamental point of a lower levy that fruitzebra makes, are unlikely to support it at an AGM without having enough time to consider it before the AGM. Fence sitters will most likely be swayed by the Exec C’tee. Also promoting a lower levy may be met with resistance by the exec c’tee to the extent that not only, as Jimmy writes

My experience of committees is that they are more likely to batten down the hatches and justify their desisions than undertake a review of their plans at this late stage

but they could scare owners into falsely concluding that future capital works will be in jeopardy if the funds are not in the kitty, even if they will not be used for a while.

[TrulEConcerned]

As to raising the matter before the AGM in a timely manner, the horse has well and truly bolted. Certainly in the case of large stratas. The usual procedure is for either

(a) the Secretary or Managing Agent well in advance of an AGM to ask owners if they have motions to list on the AGM agenda OR

(b) as the above rarely takes place, an owner could write to the Secretary or Managing Agent well in advance of an AGM to establish the deadline for them to accept motions for consideration at an AGM and supply the motion in time

As you have 10 days before the AGM, time is a bit tight. I suggest you now write to the Managing agent/Exec Committee listing the reasons you have for a decrease in the levy, what levy you are promoting be struck and for what time frame?

Equally important, offer a solution that (a) does not bind the Exec Committee for say more than one year (this will raise the probability that your suggestion will receive support as the Exec Committee, if they agree to you, are only binding themselves at most to one year) and that (b) saves the committee “face”.

Committees will often reply that they need time to study any proposal and that your views were sent late in the day and may ignore it altogether.

Writing as a former Treasurer of a large (70 unit scheme), while I convinced the Exec Committee not to raise levies for 9 years, this took some effort on my part. I can say that the following option would have a greater chance of success ESPECIALLY coming from outside the Exec Committee.

Say you pay $2,000 p.q. being $8,000 p.a. and you think, with evidence, that $1,500 p.q or $6,000 p.a. is reasonable given your reasons. As I don’t know your strata’s levy contributions in aggregate, taking your levy situation as my focus, rather than push for say your $2,000 p.q. be replaced with $1,500 p.q, you should, when communicating with the exec committee, agent and the rest of the owners

(i) Make clear WHY $6,000 p.a is fair and reasonable;

(ii) You acknowledge this issue is being raised by you late in the day (you should have done so ahead of the agenda being issued);

(iii) While you believe your suggestion has merit, you agree not to bind the hands of the Exec Committee unnecessarily;

(iv) Push for $6,000 p.a. to be struck this year, you may couch it in the form of assistance to owners during the corona virus epidemic, making clear the $6,000will be reviewed over the coming year, well before the next AGM; and

(v) Don’t change to $1,500 p.q. Push to keep to a quarterly levy of $2,000 for each of the first three quarters with $0 being the levy for the last quarter. That will aid the Exec C;ttee in the event that they will return to the $8,000

By the time the last quarter comes around either your views would have been vindicated, in which case the 2022/23 proposed levies will reflect them OR your views will be refuted and you’ll presumably return to $2,000 p.q for each of the next 4 quarters, with the levy holiday in the last quarter of 2021/22 providing a saving to owners, albeit a one off saving.

[TrulEConcerned]

I still think that Priority #1 is for you to get hold of the minutes of the AGM to verify what was RESOLVED and if possible to ascertain who voted for it.

I say this because you infer the levy increase “went through on the nod”.

I am no expert, but given you alone were at the meeting, one of the following three scenarios must have taken place (and the minutes will/should reveal this):

1. Lot owners must have been provided with paperwork included in the agenda for the AGM that allowed them to vote in advance by say ticking relevant boxes alongside relevant motions and sending that form to the strata agent; or

2. Lot owners communicated with the strata agent before the AGM making clear their voting intentions, even if this was not on the prescribed form; or

3(a). Assuming each of the other 4 lots have different owners:

The strata agent must have held at least 3 proxies and cast their votes in favour of the higher/special levy. I am assuming you voted against the higher levy or would have voted against if you knew it was a motion. Now here is where it gets interesting. If the strata agent held 3 proxies i.e. a majority of lot owners, given there are 5,  then he/she breached the Act. In small stratas a person can hold only 1 proxy. Not more than 1.

The following is from NSW Fair Trading

Proxy limits

There are limits on the total number of proxies. The limits held by one person are:

• one proxy vote only for schemes with 20 lots or less, or
• in schemes with more than 20 lots, a number that is equal to no more than 5 percent of the total number of lots.

(b) Assuming of the other 4 lots, three are owned by the one person/company

A person who owns more than one lot in a strata scheme may appoint a single proxy in respect of all the lots they own. So if of the other 4 lots, Mr Smith owns one lot and Ms Jones owns 3 lots, the Ms Jones can give her three proxies to the agent to vote as her proxy.

3 lots out of 5 gives those in favour of the higher/special levy the majority they crave.

See https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-property/strata-and-community-living/strata-schemes/meetings-of-the-owners-corporation

[TrulEConcerned]

Your situation reminds me of mine. Not that a family is running the show in my case, but that one owner has convinced a few others that he is the best thing to have happened to the strata and over the years has whittled down the committee from 5 i.e. one rep from each lot, to just 2. Him and his echo.

Jimmy mentions perhaps you can seek an order to have the committee’s numbers expanded, if that is possible.

In the next little while I will be in Mediation with my OC and one of my claims is to expand the committee. I full well expect them to decline my claim at Mediation and will then go to NCAT, laser focused on how a committee of 2 does not serve the interests of everyone in the building.

Should I win at Mediation or NCAT, I’ll happily return to this thread and share what transpired.

One point of clarification please: you mention an outside strata manager. Do you mean to replace the one you have now? That is, do you have a manager or is it managed by the committee alone? Or do you mean you may at NCAT seek “compulsory strata management”?

[TrulEConcerned]

You write that the agent said the higher levies were discussed at the AGM.

Were they in fact APPROVED at the AGM?

Do you have a copy of the Minutes of the AGM?

[TrulEConcerned]

Kaindub, you make a good point about the DA.

Independent of Whoopi asking the OC to file a DA, I  suggest that Whoopi chat to council officers, in person if possible and take with her a photo of the relevant matters i.e. her car parked in its place showing just how tight a fit it is to manvouvre between the car and the door to the said room.

Ask council officers:

a) If converting the room into one where meetings will be held on a regular basis will cause a fire hazard? Emphasise the restricted space allowing for entry/exit from that room, as your car is parked there most of the day, every day.

b) If converting the room will result inadequate ventilation causing health issues? Of course if it causes health issues, the OC, if it remains wedded to the idea of conversion, may be happy to spend money to rectify this by installing an a/c unit;

c) If such a conversion is a breach of planning legislation.

I mention this because the more you know before raising the fight to the next level, the better for you.

[TrulEConcerned]

Instead of taking action against the trouble maker, I would approach the issue differently.

Assuming the concierge is where the key is best kept for tradesmen to use, I would do the following:

1. Keep the key with the concierge as that is where tradesmen are used to collecting it;
2. When contractors are not using the swipe key (eg when they hand it back to the concierge) I suggest you get it deactivated, making it useless. This is what happens in many apartment bldgs; and
3. Reactivate the key when the contractors/tradesmen arrive for work.

Soon enough the trouble maker will realise “game over” for him and you and the others suffering from his actions will get the solution you want quickly and simply.

Good luck.

[TrulEConcerned]

If you have had no luck with your neighbour and your OC has been similarly unsuccessful with
him, then I suggest Mediation with NSW Fair Trading as a possible avenue. This I believe is a free service.

First you need to determine who owns the balcony you use: you or the OC. This fact is needed, believe, in order to have the right party apply for Mediation.

Under the SSMA, obligations for strata residents include that residents must not:

* Interfere with or impact another person’s lot, including services provided to them or the common property. This includes doing anything to affect another lot owner’s water, sewage, drainage, gas, electricity, garbage, air conditioning, heating or telecommunications services
* Cause a nuisance or hazard to another resident, such as playing loud music or
* Use the common property in a way that interferes unreasonably with others in the scheme using and enjoying it.

Before filling in the online request for mediation form, I urge you to call FT on 13 32 20 and explain the issue to them.

As to your suggestion of installing a solution, if the balcony is OC property, it is not for you to interfere with it in any way without receiving written approval from the OC. And one would think if it is OC owned, then the OC and not you should fix the problem. After all, why should you spend time and effort fixing a problem caused by someone else to property you do not own, whilst you as installer will be responsible for any negative consequence of your installation.

Good luck.

[Author]

Replies