Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Oh…… so after all the good advice obtained here you’ve decided to close the door, pull down the blinds, and to retreat into a comfortable place on the basis of adding to those three (3) already identical Special By-Laws, that may not have been necessary in the first place and which may not even be Registered on your Plan’s Strata Title (and be therefore be not worth the paper their written on)!
Obviously your prerogative, so good luck with the renovations!
If the existing (Special) By-Laws (SBL) are specific to individual Lots, then NO you cannot use those, other than as the basis of yet another one for your Lot provided your proposed renovation is of the same type (i.e. just change the Lot number).
As a generic SBL of the type envisaged could eventually benefit all Owners, then it’s customary for the Owners Corporation to pay, and NO a Strata Manager cannot overrule an Executive Committee but they should in this case be providing some advice.
As much of any further advice would depend upon the type and extent of your proposed renovation, could you please provide some detail about that, and additionally advise if those existing three (3) SBL’s have been Registered on the Strata Title?
Interesting, although whist NSW Legislation doesn’t explicitly exclude voting at General Meetings by any means other than personally or by proxy in the form prescribed at a physical meeting, it doesn’t explicitly permit alternatives such as on-line voting either.
Nonetheless our Owners Corporation resolved several years ago to permit on-line voting at General and Executive Committee Meetings, but with the proviso that there was a quorum present at the physical meetings of the former.
In the interests of equality of advertising, THIS is the system that our Plan’s been using very successfully for an average 17 on-line votes per AGM, and at an average cost of $150 for each of those Meetings.
I am parochial though, so I’d love to peruse V2 of that Qld-developed system; can’t help wondering what the outcome would have been if that or something similar could have been used for the recent State Election (?).
…. and remember that a special resolution, where ≥75% of those entitled to vote do so in favour as determined from their collective units of entitlement, is all that is needed for an Owners Corporation (O/C) to at a General Meeting grant consent to renovations of the types mentioned, and that a Special By-Law (SBL) is only additionally required if the renovations involve any part of the Common Property and the O/C wants to shift its responsibility for the maintenance and repair of such areas to the Owner who’s renovating and to subsequent Owners of that Lot.
Examples of the above would be:
1) A free-standing kitchen renovation where items such as tools and materials would be moving around the common property, and where the O/C would need to be assured that contractors were licensed and insured, but where the O/C would not normally be responsible for maintaining and repairing any items comprising the renovations. In this case the O/C would specially resolve to grant its consent.
2) A bathroom renovation involving new waterproofing, and new tiles on common walls and on the floor (incl. a shower recess), where information on licenses and insurance will of course again be required, and as the Lot Owner would be disturbing the waterproof membranes, and would likely be removing the average quality tiles etc that were fixed as part of the original construction and be replacing those with more expensive / up-market products, the O/C may wish to consent and to concurrently resolve to make a SBL to make Owner/s of the renovated Lot responsible for the maintenance and repair of all items comprising the renovations. It’s worth noting that such as SBL would need to be put before the same General Meeting, and that the renovating Owner would need to put in writing their agreement to that SBL in advance of a vote being taken; no prior agreement=no consent.
As both JimmyT and PeterC have observed, it’s quite common for O/C’s to specially resolve to Register a generic SBL covering renovations including Conditions, and thereby enable its Executive Committee to grant Consent/s on behalf of the O/C to renovations of any types that fit within the “envelope” of that SBL.
John – you could have completed your copy of the outgoing Condition Report and submitted that to the Property Manager or to the Owner/Landlord in order to get the discussion started about any discrepancies, but as you’ve already gone back to the property and again cleaned, I don’t think that much would be gained by now complaining.
You could contact Tenants NSW for some advice after the fact.
trying to – before responses proliferate, what State or Territory are you in?
CHSG – I don’t wish to pre-judge your E/C, but this may be yet another example of a too common situation where Owners become aware of activities by others that are not in compliance with By-Laws, and yet ignore them until such time as they proliferate, at which time the E/C has to play catch-up in order to address those non-compliances.
However the current non-compliances arose, if you’re in NSW and the privacy screens are as I expect attached to Common Property, then this is not one of those (limited) circumstances where an Owners Corporation can just enter a Lot or otherwise access its balcony, to in this case remove the items that are after all persons’ property, and with added complication that some of the people may not be Owners.
So…your E/C should firstly check the wording of that Special By-Law (SBL), and then check that it’s been properly Registered on the Strata Title, because if it’s not then it is unenforceable.
If Registration has occurred, then your E/C should check if its Strata Manager has been delegated to issue a Notice-to-Comply (NTC) with that SBL, and if they have been so delegated, then the Secretary can instruct them to issue it, and otherwise your E/C needs to meet and to properly resolve to have the Strata Manager issue the offenders with that document.
The issue of a NTC sets in place formal procedures that need to be strictly followed by your Owners Corporation (O/C) IF the actions required to comply with the SBL (i.e. removal or modification of the privacy screens) are not followed within the terms prescribed, where those actions include an Application to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a penalty of up to $550 to be issued the offenders, and if all the above fails, followed by Orders permitting access to individual Lots by the O/C under Sect.145 in order for it to have all then non-compliant privacy screens removed or modified.
Irrespective of your specific circumstances, it’s always best to nip all non compliances in the bud as opposed to having to play catch-up.
shedsrus – good pseudonym, and the answer to general question about the workings of Lot/Common Property is “in mysterious ways”.
The answer to your specific question however is a little simpler, in that if there is no Special By-Law stating differently on the subject, then if the hotwater heater screen is entirely freestanding and on your Property then it’s your responsibility, and if it’s on or attached to Common Property (such as to a perimeter wall of your Lot) then it’s the Owners Corporation’s (O/C) responsibility.
But, here comes one of those mysterious bits….. even if the screen is the O/C’s responsibility and you want to modify it and the O/C agrees, then you may go ahead and do that, but still at your expense.
So depending upon how often you anticipate replacing your hotwater service, it may be prudent to just leave the screen as it is.
renjay58 – back in post #3 I amongst other things said…..
… a vote by simple majority of those present at the Meeting both personally and by proxy to terminate the services of the current Strata Manager (SM) would be legal, provided that’s also in accordance with the procedures given in their Agency Agreement with your Owners Corporation, where a minimum period of 3 months written notice to the SM generally applies.
So did your Owners Corporation provide its current Strata Manager (SM) with the prescribed notice of its intention to terminate the Agency Agreement (usually a minimum 3 months before its expiry date)?
On the basis of what you’ve posted so far, I think not, so unless the current SM has agreed to other terms with regard to termination, if the intention of the EGM is still as you originally stated to dismiss the current SM and to appoint a new one, then that cannot happen without placing your Owners Corporation both in Breach of Contract, and as I again stated earlier, in a position where a smooth hand-over of records and management continuity from one SM to another will not occur, and worse where your O/C may find itself for some period with no Strata Manager at all.
So perhaps that’s one of the things that you should be focusing your questions on, as well as raising the possibility of Orders being sought to invalidate the Resolution/s.
excathedra – I am gentle sometimes, but seriously, whether the actions of the Member are as I observed “contrived” or as you stated “breach of principles of appropriate governance”, there’s little that can be done about that unless someone who’s entitled to a vote was denied that such in circumstances where the Notice of Meeting wasn’t provided in the prescribed timeframe, or where some procedural matter such as the providing of Proxy Forms wasn’t managed properly and it can be shown that a Resolution of the Meeting would have been different if those procedures had been properly followed.
Every post so far had suggested that renjay58 should be speaking with other Owners to explain what’s going on and the consequences of an ill-conceived vote, so that should be happening!
Just one final thought renjay – casually mention to your sneaky Member and to any of his supporters that unless the correct procedures are followed prior to the commencement of the planned EGM, you will be seeking Orders in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of Sects 153 and 154 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act to have any and all Resolutions there taken invalidated and/or nullified.
Should you actually see the need to do that (and don’t be hesitant), then use THIS form and watch the timeframe shown in Sect 154, and come back here if you need some further advice from people who have been through the process.
Ken – those flexible braided hoses are the property of the Lot Owner, who is responsible for both maintaining them and for any damage that arises when they fail.
I say when they fail because they WILL, and that’s why it’s a good idea to replace them annually, especially for those on a hotwater supply, and why an even better idea is to have a competent plumber replace them with specially shaped copper pipe.
Again, when they fail and the water supply cannot be immediately shut-off, the Owners Corporation may take steps to have that supply isolated elsewhere, particularly if damage is being caused to its Common Property and/or to other Lots (e.g. adjacent and below), and may at it’s discretion invoice any costs of it doing that to the Owner of the Lot where the failure occurred.
The good news is that damage arising from the failure of braided water supply hoses is covered by Strata Owners Contents Insurance, and depending upon any optional coverage selected, may also cover damage to items (of contents) outside of the insured’s Lot.
renjay58 – so far as the Notice of Meeting (i.e. the agenda) is concerned, if it and a copy of the Minutes of the last General Meeting were provided to all Owners at least 14 days before the Meeting date, then that’s in compliance with the provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA).
With regard to the Proxies, provided the correct FORM was used and the person granting their proxy has signed it and in this instance there’s a preference clearly shown at Item 3, then that too is in compliance with the SCMA, as even though that form has been “modified” in the manner you describe it could be argued that the person granting it was in agreement with the extent of that pre-completion.
So whilst all the above may be contrived, and even if Notice was provided less than 14 days beforehand and had been without the previous Minutes, an EGM provides some “wiggle-room” in those respects, and if challenged, the process would be likely considered legal unless it could be proven that the Resolutions taken would have been different had total compliance with the SCMA occurred; that would be for you to judge after the Meeting.
Similarly, a vote by simple majority of those present at the Meeting both personally and by proxy to terminate the services of the current Strata Manager (SM) would be legal, provided that’s also in accordance with the procedures given in their Agency Agreement with your Owners Corporation, where a minimum period of 3 months written notice to the SM generally applies.
Legal compliance is one thing, but making a sound decision is another in this instance, where if it’s not careful the O/C could deprive itself of a smooth hand-over of records and management continuity from one SM to another, or worse still find itself for some period with no Strata Manager at all.
So as Peter suggested, do some lobbying with other Owners to gauge support for a more measured process of changing SM (or not), and if you don’t get the numbers perhaps look at those in the context of you calling for a “poll vote” at the Meeting on the Motion about the SM, where the outcome is determined on the basis of Owners’ units-of-entitlement as opposed to a simple majority vote.
No probably not, and even if I did know something that you didn’t it would be unlikely to be entirely relevant in another country (like Qld.), but if your Owners Corporation has locally relevant Strata Insurance and you have Strata Contents Insurance then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
By the way, I wasn’t having a go at you, it’s just that none of us here should draw too long a bow or go too far off topic, and in fact I’d have put one of those smiley faces in my last post, but only just found the “button” for those at the bottom of the page, so
No problem ozzie, I’m no terminology expert either when it comes to on-line forums (or is that foruma), but I was just suggesting you put all your issues with the Strata Manager and their Agency Agreement in the one post, or even after replies re one or the other, instead of in different / multiple posts, albethey all under “The Professionals”.
Hope that didn’t confuse you; because it did me!
KP – I should really should know better than to again even slightly contradict you on your favourite topic…… but way back when, many strata-titled buildings in NSW were found to be grossly under-insured, and Sects 82 and 85 of the SCMA had the objective of ensuring that Owners Corporations (O/C) had such buildings covered for total loss (hence the references to “destruction” and “replacement”), and that the amount insured was reflective of a building valuation that was no more than 5 years old.
So you shouldn’t read too much into terms such as those that you highlighted in your post (#5), because if strata building policies really covered everything that a normal home building policy does, excluding shared facilities, then there’d be no need for specialised strata contents insurance and those normal home building policies wouldn’t specifically exclude any part of a building that’s part of a strata title.
Suffice to say, most of those significant differences aren’t relevant to Ross’s matter, and as some Insurers will depending upon claims history, loyalty etc variously accept or decline claims of the same type after similar events, perhaps Ross should in addition to progressing electricity supply investigations with his Strata Manager, additionally clarify coverage or otherwise for the security system with the O/C’s insurer.