[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks ScotlandX,

You make sense, especially about the need to give adequate notice when ADDING motions.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy’s comment “I vividly recall a flooring salesman telling me not to worry about strata committees as ‘it’s all BS and they can’t stop you doing what you want’.  It isn’t and they can” is correct.

I recall considering installing an a/c unit in a strata unit where many units already have an a/c. After initial legwork I discovered:

1. I may or may not need local council approval;

2. Regardless of (1) I will need OC approval in writing as I am changing the outward appearance of a lot (which also happens to be common property). If I needed local council approval my application must contain the OC’s approval;

3. The OC would need to enact a by-law for this issue; and

4. I would be required to compensate the OC for all costs related to the installation of the a/c, the cost of preparing and registering the by laws and when the time comes, the removal of the a/c unit (not to mention maintain it to the standards set by the OC).

As the above was my initial findings, I gave up and now keep my windows open instead.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the feedback Jimmy.

As I read your replies, the two avenues proposed by the SC:

1. May be unnecessary or unworkable;

2. Do not offer the SC anything new under the sun, because the SSMA itself does not require them to read/reply to correspondence if they don’t want to; and

3. May be the SC’s (genuine) attempt to deter a chronic trouble maker.

If so, then I see no reason to oppose this change by the SC.

Two final questions:

a) Assuming  the By-Law is carried at a general meeting, will any owner who supports it find herself looking stupid in front of NCAT if in time she seeks Mediation after a legitimate email from her (say about a neighbour keeping a dog that disturbs her right to peaceful enjoyment) was ignored by the SC, as the By-Law allows? And

b) Flowing from that, would you as an owner but not SC member, support or abstain from voting on such a motion?

Thanks again.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply Jimmy.

CODE: As I understand you, this may be unworkable and have no effect when compared to it not coming into existence because there is no legislated requirement for the SC to read correspondence.

BY-LAW

As to the By-law, I would expect short, sharp and relevant correspondence from an owner would be read and if needed, acted upon by the SC. Whilst reams of BS sent by an owner would be (rightly) left unread. Other than trying to inject fear into some owners, I don’t understand the point of such a By-law.

You mention the possibility that “property values are being detrimentally affected”. Do you think potential purchasers of a lot when searching the records may be put off by what they may interpret as owners being muzzled?

Thanks again for your insights.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy, thanks for the reply.

1. I agree with your view that there is no law requiring the SC to read correspondence or reply to a pain of an owner. And that it is stupid to formalise this. If I were on the SC I may be inclined to disregard abusive correspondence but would never seek to silence owners and remove their right from telegraphing their views. Also as it is proposed, the SC members alone decide if correspondence received fails their test of “reasonableness”;

2. But formalising such a regulation will inject fear into the populace and will discourage correspondence, even if crucial and far from trivial;

3. You suggest that the SC be challenged in a future AGM. The SC members are in the positions for life (sitting on a small hill of proxies, replenished annually) as most residents are charmed by a couple of them and are clueless as to what is proposed. Of those owners alert to the autocracy proposed, many are very old, in poor health and are afraid to confront the SC or genuinely plan to, but forget.

My worries are as follows:

a) The by law (or “code”) will enable the SC and agent not to acknowledge ANY correspondence they receive, so in the case of say overpaid or wrongly charged levies, the owner could take forever to get her money back. After all, her email alerting the agent and Treasurer could be said “not to have been ever received”;

b) An owner (occupier) may be accused of something he has done or his tenant (if an investor) has done and his reply to the accusation need not be acknowledged and in time he may be said to have ignored the complaint etc.

I suspect that an owner in the strata has harassed one or more SC members which may be why the proposals have been ventilated. But I cannot understand how the alleged harassing correspondence was read and the SC acting upon it, as the SC has not had a properly constituted SC meeting for the three years since the current mob were elected. Presumably they talk informally amongst themselves and choose not to hold SC meetings, but that is not what is required under the Act, isn’t it?

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Kaindub,

Thanks for yr reply.

Your wrote (with my comments in italics following your statement):

The government has not yet outlined what the terms of their non eviction for renters means. (Agreed, it’s best to wait a few days to see what the new rules are).

Technically sending a notice of termination is an eviction notice. You are depriving a person of a roof over their head. (I thought that “eviction” was in situations other than end of lease. If what you’re saying is true – and I hope it is not – then as Jimmy indicated, the situation falls into a periodic occupancy which MUST be on the terms of the current lease and not the tenant’s unilateral demands of last week. True?)

If you do not send the termination notice, then as you know, the lease becomes continuing. That means the rent stays the same unless there is an agreement between you and the tenant. What changes is the notice period. 21 days for the tenant, 60 days for you. ( I read online that on a periodic basis the landlord must give 90 days’ notice, which is even worse than the 60 days you indicated may be the case. 60 days is bad enough).

I have heard that the rules for tenant rent relief will include that the tenant is on jobseeker or other social welfare. (The tenant works in IT and I very much doubt will be on any welfare. If he was on welfare or expected to be, I am sure he would have made that known to me and he has not. Therefore, if he keeps his job and his full time status ,+/- half a day or a day, and is not on welfare then the eviction/rent relief program expected to be announced by the Prime Minister will NOT apply to him? True?)

So unless the tenant relies on social security, you may be able to evict them. But as I said times have changed and it’s all untested. (If he says he is on welfare or is able to receive welfare, can I ask for proof or am I just to take his word?)

To evict a tenant you have to have a court order. Since the local courts are only dealing with urgent matters at the moment, the tenant could be there a long time. (But under the terms of the current lease? True?)

What have you got to lose by making it a continuing lease? The tenant has to still pay the same rent.
(I want to keep the tenant, ideally under a new lease, which will have a lower rent than the current rent, but he wants to stay so long as I formalise a lease which requires half the rent currently being paid and my undertaking never to chase him for any and all unpaid rent).

You will have to wait till the government releases its rules about evictions in the current environment to see what the new rules are. (Agreed).

Maybe wait a few days to see the government rules.
In my opinion, there will be pain for landlords.
There will be some tenants who will try to game the system.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy,

You write: However, my understanding is that if the tenant refused to leave, they would still be bound by the terms of the existing lease until such times as they did leave or signed another lease. It is therefore in your tenant’s interest to come to some kind of mutually acceptable arrangement with you.
So as I understand you, the tenant can possibly continue his occupancy (on a periodic basis subject to the current lease) but only on the terms and conditions of the current lease. He cannot demand to stay (or just stay without my consent) on terms I don’t agree to. Correct?

BTW as I mentioned earlier, in one email he indicated he was considering terminating the lease himself if I don’t agree to his terms, so I hope that means he understands he cannot dictate terms of occupancy, but they must be agreed between the parties.

Thanks for the Tenants’ Union factsheet.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply Jimmy. You make perfect sense. He is indeed changing the terms of the current lease so yes, I should send the Termination Notice lest the situation fall into a period arrangement under terms not agreed b/w the parties.

One more thing. Please confirm that sending a Termination Notice to herald the end of a fixed term cannot be construed by him or anyone as an eviction notice.

Thanks.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi Kaindub,

Thanks for the reply. Note in this case I am the landlord and to clarify, I am in NSW.

The tenant is unsure if he wants to stay.

In several emails he indicated that:

(a) He wants to give notice to vacate (but so far has not done so);

(b) He wants a new lease, but only at 50% of the current rent; and

(c) Any new lease includes my undertaking to “accept” that in the event that he falls behind in rent at any time for any length, that I will not at any time seek that he pays any arrears. Note he does not seek rent deferral for the month(s) he claims to be unable to pay the rent, instead he seeks forgiveness for the months (in the future) that he will claim he was unable to pay.

Given I do not want the occupancy to fall into a periodic arrangement, I believe I must send him the Termination Notice to formally end the occupation.

But I don’t want to scare the guy into thinking that I am not open to negotiations. Hence my initial query: does sending the Termination Notice and at the same time (or close to that time) emailing him to make clear my willingness to negotiate, nullify the Termination Notice’s objective for him to yield up the premises at the end of the fixed term?

[TrulEConcerned]

Thank you Jimmy, I will follow up your suggestion and thank you kaindub for your advice,

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the invaluable advice Jimmy, Austman and ScotlandX.

Sorry for my late reply but I was tied up speaking to a couple of lawyers (here in NSW) and a barrister about appealing the matter.

In short I was told that I could and have more than a good chance of winning BUT at the end of the day I will be financially worse off as the costs greatly outweigh the benefits (ie. damages possibly awarded to me) of taking action.

So naturally it makes no sense to flog an expensive dead horse.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi all,

I was rereading the AGM paperwork and see that its financial accounts list:

income and

expenses

The ACTUAL expenses for the year are mentioned, but not the ACTUAL levies paid. Instead it mentions DUE levies (i.e. the levies that were struck at the previous AGM). As a first year accounting student knows, the absence of ACTUAL figures renders the accounts as meaningless.

Other than me going to inspect the books at the managing agent’s office and paying a fee, can I instead  ask her to email me or bring to the meeting evidence of levy payments made? For instance, a bank statement of the trust a/c?

Please advise. Thank you!

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi Scotlandx,

1. Thanks for the reply explaining that I cannot rely on the by law in question that refers to “damage”. As to your point on its enforcement by the OC,  I heard from Fair Trading that the OC can enforce by laws if it chooses, but has legal requirement to do so. Is that true?

2. I agree that the matter needs to be handled by a lawyer and spoke to one who looked into the case but indicated doesn’t have the manpower to handle it at this time and I need to act within a certain time frame.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

I discovered that in the By Law which documented the approval granted by the OC to the renovator was the following term:

Special By Law
The owner ……shall be responsible at its own expense
(ii) to make good any damage to a lot or to common property arising out of the Works at his own expense.

Can “damage to a lot” be defined as including lost rent caused by the renovator’s actions? If so, then the neighbour breached the contract he had with the OC, of which I am a member. Right?  Hence I have a case against him, right?

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Kaindub,

Are you saying that in order to get meaningful information I must pay the managing agent to access the records? I was forced to do this last year and the exercise cost me north of $55. Why can’t the SC or the agent be made to comply with providing me with MEANINGFUL data in the financial statements?

Your suggestion to ask the chairman is a non starter. He is old and has no interest in strata matters and is Chair because it suits the other members of the SC. He would not know who is and who is not financial and would direct me to ask the Tsr, the Sec or the agnt.

The idea of a late pmt fee is not a starter in my strata plan as it is a small plan and the SC harness the votes of all their mates, even the unfinancial UNLESS their mate(s) can be shown to be unfinancial. There were occasions where only when I queried again and again an owner’s levy pmts did the SC not count an owner’s vote.

[Author]

Replies