[TrulEConcerned]

Hi twosailram,

Your points make sense, in particular the requirement for lobbying.

In my experience one needs plenty of time for lobbying given the reflexive deference many give a committee versus  an individual or individuals who are not regarded in the same light.

[TrulEConcerned]

Many thanks Jimmy.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply Jimmy.

Allow me to clarify:

1. The strata has 50 lots;
2. The project is to fence off an area around visitor car spaces. The logic of which has not been fully explained. That is: why the fencing needs to be done and what options (quotes) are to be considered. Given the SC likes to provide work to mates as contractors (eg architect, landscape designer etc) in addition to the firm presumably supplying and installing the fence, it is impossible to guess what will be the all up cost;
3.  No quotes were supplied so far by the SC in the notice of meeting for any part, let alone the whole job; and
4. Historically, the SC has asked for a blanket approval to do something (in one case, develop a section of the common property and sell it to for a few owners, who later changed their minds about buying it) and the SC did so without providing quotes for the job. The OC was then left with the bill.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy wrote

But then if the tenants have signed a rental contract that set the limit at two adults, aren’t the they being unreasonable in challenging it. I think the compromise, given the lingering effects of covid and the resurgence of short-term letting, would be to say that you were prepared to accept another couple for a higher rental.

Your points are very good and I believe are very “reasonable”. Thanks.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy wrote

By the way, since, under the new laws you can’t have by-laws restricting short-term rental of part of a property while the owner or tenant is in residence, there is nothing to stop a tenant from letting a room on Airbnb or its ilk.

Ok, I hear you. Say as in my case, I leased to a couple and the agreement between them and me specified no more than 2 persons can live on the premises. If one tenant vacated, then it makes sense the other can sublet to one other person. I have no problem with that.

But if the couple are living on the premises and they decide to rent a room to 1 or 2 other people, thereby breaching the agreed limit of 2 persons (as per the RTA), then my refusal to consent to this is not “unreasonable”. True?

[TrulEConcerned]

Re: Jimmy’s comments

1. Tenants told me that they would like the barking to stop and do not know how to address the situation;
2. I agree that it is the tenants who are harmed (or say they are) who should complain. The problem I see is that they cannot point to a document indicating a dog was approved to live in a certain lot and hence if I direct them to the by-laws (and for them to ask the SC/OC to enforce them) it may be tricky to ask the SC to enforce a by-law over a pet whose residency is undocumented;
3. “Did you ever submit a motion requesting clarification to the committee”? Not a motion, a query at a general meeting to which I was told “I do not know that a pet lives there”. The committee member left it at that. There has been no change in SC policy since I applied. The policy was put in place after the Court of Appeal ruled in the Cooper case.

My interest is simple: to ensure everyone who wants a pet will jump through the same hurdles as everyone else. No more, no less. And when an owner be it a SC member or anyone else is told that their tenant has a dog, that owner should be proactive: learn the facts and apply for pet residency in the approved manner; and not ignore the revelation  of a dog (so as to not disturb her tenant).

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Thank you Sir Humphrey. This committee like several I have been involved with are, shall we say…very informal. Few if any meetings are held. As to evidence of approval given to a pet owner…I expect the Chair will issue a letter to that effect in due course. When or if the pet owner asks for it. And that letter will not be broadcast.

In my experience, committees prefer the less is written the better and many owners are not au fait with their rights and when told “it’s OK for you to have a pet”, will often not follow that up with a request for that in writing.

[TrulEConcerned]

To clarify:

1. I like dogs;
2. Others in the complex have not complained because the dog’s immediate neighbours are tenants who have no idea of their rights and are shy of bothering their landlords;
3. I do not live in the complex and saw and heard the dog when I visited a tenant to do some gardening;
4. The dog does not bark 24/7 but barks enough to send one tenant into the street to make phone calls;
5. I am pro-pet, but I don’t like the multiple hurdles thrown in my way and in the way of another ownersby the SC when we inquired about a potential tenant of ours wanting a pet. We were given forms to fill in with multiple questions and were informed that the SC has 14 days to render an opinion. No such hurdles were positioned when the tenant of an SC member moved a dog in. I base that comment on the replies of SC members who when I brought the matter up denied any knowledge of any pet in the complex and of any application for a pet.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy wrote

Pet applications should be discussed at committee and the result recorded in the minutes. Otherwise they should be in the records of the strata scheme and available to all owners.

Why don’t you submit a motion to the committee to either show that they have considered a pet application for that dog or ask them to commence actions against the tenant to require them to follow the by-laws?

I suspect you know the answers to these questions and I wonder why you are airing all these disputes with your committee – or one member of it – in these pages.

Thanks for the point on by-laws needing to be enforced and a song and dance need not be made about it. That makes sense.

As to your other answers, I did not know that pet matters need to be recorded in the minutes because to date in the strata I refer to, pet matters have not been recorded in minutes.

I like your suggestion on submitting a motion about pets in residence and to clarify is applications for pets to reside at the strata were made by owners.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Sir Humphrey, I followed up your comment on volunteer workers and guess what? Our policy also cover that. So I asked the managing agent what NSWFT wanted me to ask: “Why can’t an owner or resident perform this work? I am sure they will charge less than $82 for one sweep per month”.

No reply as yet from the agent.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy T wrote
I fail to see how the membership of a reputable strata online service (and I know the one you’re referring to) is only of personal benefit to the secretary/treasurer, since it can only be of any use in their dealings with the committee and owners corporation. They don’t need to be sitting repeating chapter and verse everything they have heard  or read on the website for it to be of benefit to the committee and community as a whole.

There is no real committee. The strata has 5 lots. The committee is made of two persons where one is an echo and mostly answers queries with “talk to the Secretary/Treasurer or the Managing Agent”. The other is the Sec/Tsr (who has at least one owner’s – who does not seem alert – proxy in his pocket). Neither SC members are involved in administering the strata: that was outsourced to a managing agent. I can only guess that the benefit the Sec/Tsr derives from the subscription is for his other possible properties where maybe there is no managing agent and perhaps he cannot get a lock on the votes so easily.

Regarding payment of expenses (in NSW), there is nothing I can find under strata law to prevent the OC paying legitimate expenses retrospectively, just as there is nothing to prevent them placing restrictions on these expenses.

I understand that any payment must be approved at a AGM and paid retrospectively. I have no issue with that. NSWFT focused on the word “retrospectively” in my discussions. In the case I mention, payment was made mid 2020 in secret without informing let alone allowing the OC to vote. The Chair approved paying the Sec/Tsr and passed her approval to the managing agent to pay. That is how the 2 person SC worked. The AGM some months afterwards was not informed of the pmt, let alone given the chance to vote. Also if someone invoices the SC for 60 visits to the strata (without starting over what period), asking the OC to pay the bridge toll etc, is it too much to ask for details of why he visited each time and what he did? Is it too much to ask for original invoices for items claimed to have been purchased?

If the committee member is a valued contributor to the workings of the committee, I can’t see why they should have to be out of pocket to fulfill their role.

Nobody should be out of pocket for legitimate provable required expenses. But that does not seem to be the case here.
I don’t value any committee member who seems to be allergic to transparency; had me removed from the SC because I insisted that tradesmen and SC members  (including him) who want to do work for the OC submit their quotes before they are engaged by the SC/OC (and not be hired and paid until the quote is accepted) and an individual who was found to have used OC funds to pay for a neighbour’s kitchen appliance in the past.  As for work claimed to have been performed for the OC: there is no proof. For instance, he claims he purchased paint and other items for work at the premises. But there are no original invoices/receipts; there is no mention of what was the condition of whatever was painted before it was painted and how it looks after the said painting was done. I have no idea what was painted, assuming something was painted as the SC reported nothing about this to the OC.

NSWFT asked me to question the agent about paying this invoice in breach of the Act and to establish how many times the agent has paid this way. I sense NSWFT is finally growing some fangs.

On the other hand, the ATO does not permit expenses incurred in attending strata committee meetings as legitimate deductions.  However, some would say that’s a good reason why expenses SHOULD be paid – since theywould be out of pocket otherwise.

I have no issue with reimbursing folk. If it follows the law.  I have an issue when one SC member asking the other SC member to sign off on his request for reimbursement and the agent paying in breach of the SSMA requirement that such payments need OC approval before being paid. And keeping that pmt a secret from the OC. The AGM that four months later in 2020 followed the payment made no reference to the payment.

The simple solution is to propose a motion to your next general meeting that expenses to committee members no longer be paid, and see how that flies.

I think you miss my point, or I was unclear. I have no issue with reimbursement so long as it is a per the Act; when retrospective approval is given by the OC; not done in secret and not done without evidence of purchases; without reports on 60 trips to the strata indicating what was done and photos before and after of work performed.

By the way, in Queensland, body corporate law allows for a maximum expenses claim of $50 per meeting and $300 per year.

Way to go Anastasia!

[TrulEConcerned]

On 18FEB21 ScotlandX you suggested I ask the SM why he paid the Sec/Tsr without the matter going to the OC for a vote.
I have had other fish to fry the last two months and did not approach the SM as yet.

In Feb the Chair dismissed my oral query claiming she knew nothing about it (“it” being a $900 out to the Sec/Tsr that was made in secret by the SC to the Sec/Tsr without informing, let alone seeking approval of the OC).

Two weeks ago (early May) when I saw her she said that the pmt was approved by the Sec/Tsr himself and she did so in tandem only because he did so.
I told her that the Sec/Tsr cannot approve pmt for himself and the invoice has her signature on it under the words “I approve”. His signature is nowhere to be found on the invoice.

“It is for the OC to approve”, I made clear.

My issue was $400 paid to a strata website for the Sec/Tsr’s benefit alone. More galling when you consider he has little to do with the strata as all functions have been outsourced to the managing agent.

Also I queried another $500 or so he was paid allegedly for goods purchased and travel expenses relating to his alleged 60 trips to the strata. But there is no proof he did any work nor that he traveled even once let alone 6 dozen  times to the strata for OC related matters.

Today the Chair replied:

The amount was for Specialist Strata lawyers to act as central messaging interchanges for NSW Strata Committee members, is very useful & is being widely used by Strata properties. It costs $300 per year which was discounted for us from $400.

This IMHO is her echoing what she was told by the Sec/Tsr.

Even if what she says is true, that is, the site is useful, the OC does not benefit form this one iota.
So can I legitimately ask the agent not only as you suggest:

if he believes it is ok to make payments to the Committee member when the Act requires approval of the payments by the owners in a general meeting

But also

why is the Sec/Tsr spending OC funds for his personal benefit as the fruits of the website have not been shared with anyone on the OC.

Agree?

[TrulEConcerned]

Interesting. Thanks for that.

[TrulEConcerned]

Given:

1. As has been written, cats are great in the effort to control rodents;
2. The council has clarified what is needed by them in order to take action;
3. You are determined to rid your strata of cats given the constant cleaning costs; and
4. It is had to tell if you’re anti cat or anti anyone treating the strata like an unregulated zoo.

If I may suggest a compromise:

Find a place that you would be happy where the cat(s) is (are) to be fed. This could be (a) in a distinct

part of the common property away from most folks’ homes and cars or (b) you could suggest the feeding

take place on the premises of the cats’ caterer. You could also require him to clean up every time. The cleaning up

requirement could be managed through enacting a by law. If you really wanted to be sneaky, you could offer a place

on the common property and ensure one of the existing security cameras is aimed at the feeding station.

If you have no cameras in place, now’s the perfect time…

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Pistonbroke – you ask why am I not on the committee. The plan has 5 lots. In the past every lot was on the committee. The Sec/Tsr a few years back demanded that I not be (re) elected to the committee by setting the number of members no longer at 5 but at 2: him and an elderly woman (was his choice), the latter who serves as chairman but in truth as his echo, asking no questions and offering no opinion. The Sec/Tsr persuaded an elderly male owner who suffers from major memory problems to give him the latter’s proxy. This way the Sec/Tsr has 3 out of 5 votes before even consulting the 5th lot.

Why did he tell the other owners that he could not sit on the committee if I was elected? Simple, he took a dislike to my demands for transparency where I insisted on quotes before work was performed for the OC, where he prefers no quotes. He also prefers to be paid by the managing agent without revealing such pmts to the OC. Also he never forgot that I unearthed an invoice for another lot’s stove replacement which he as Tsr many years ago paid for with OC funds. You read right. The OC thereafter insisted he repay this amount, which I suppose he did years later (but can’t recall) and am confident any pmt was without any interest or other penalty.

I also understand he inquired with others about my history as Tsr of a very large strata in Sydney for 9 years, where there too I demanded transparency; but there everyone on that committee was happy with such an attitude by me.

[Author]

Replies