Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Be careful not to confuse some “act of good faith” repair that may be made to a Lot Owner’s property by the Owners Corporation subsequent to some “event” occurring on its Common Property, with what may be covered by its Strata Insurance.
The only “lot property” that Strata Insurance covers are those parts of a Lot that are considered to form part of the Common Property, and the cover for “lot owners’ fixtures” relates only to items that have been fixed in some permanent way to a part of the Common Property within a Lot by the Owner.
Even if the security system was installed as part of the building’s construction, if it’s for Ross‘s Lot only and it doesn’t form part of some centralised system that is perhaps integrated with the intercom, then I agree with Marvin (thread#3); it’s his responsibility.
As Ross‘s intercom wasn’t fitted by him it’s not a “lot owners’ fixture”, but the responsibility for the cabling from the handset in his Lot back to the main access panel has been correctly accepted by the Strata Manager as an Owners Corporation responsibility, as should the electrical supply cabling from the sub-board in Ross’s Lot to the “common meter box”.
Marvin‘s advice about the electricity supply cabling is correct – try to have your Strata Manager treat the maintenance of that in the same way as they have agreed to for the intercom cabling; perhaps ask your neighbours if they’re experiencing similar problems.
There are a few nuances around the electrical wiring in the Lot and a few other items, but a reference to them here would only serve to confuse matters (further); so I won’t.
Blueman – as the fencer would have worked everything out on a per metre rate for each length / variation of height etc, I don’t accept that it would have been a big job to quote individual owners; they do that all the time!
Further, the total costs of the job could have been paid by the Strata Manager, and the individual components recovered by showing the cost as a separate line item on Owners’ next Levy Contributions Invoice.
All that’s immaterial now, but I would, if only for future reference, check the Strata Title Plan just to see if yours is for some reason atypical, in that dividing fences between Lots are shown as thick black lines and therefore denote that they’re Common Property.
So what to do about what you call “defects”?
I don’t think that issues such as minor discrepancies in the alignment of the new fence relative to the original, different post positions, and stepped panels are “defects”, in fact I think they’re all about the fact that there was no detailed specification or scope-of-work provided.
Sure, an experienced fencer should have known better, so after perhaps checking their Licence details with the Department of Fair Trading (in NSW), and if there’s noting untoward there, then I come back to the point of your E/C arranging with its Strata Manager to have the fencer quote to have the fence meet expectations, and then try to negotiate around that.
ozzietars – if your Strata Manager has agreed to excluded Schedule B fees, which for the unaware are those charged as “disbursements” covering a number of services provided in addition to those involved in the routine management of the Plan, then you’re fortunate as most salary packages for a Strata Manager include at least a portion (if not 100%) of the income received from those fees, and there’s therefore an in-built incentive for those to be optimised.
Back to your point though, the “disbursements” Schedule may have been included with your Draft Agreement as a matter of routine, in fact I think it has to be, so check that the Item where the “agreed services fee” is shown also states whether or not that amount includes Schedule Bs, and if it does then you’re sweet, and if it doesn’t then have those words of clarification included!
While you’re negotiating on the Draft Agreement, maybe also check that the “agreed services fee” includes GST and the Strata Manager hasn’t loaded some Schedule B fees into the one where those such as for handling e-mails, photocopying, postage and preparing S109 (Strata) Certificates all reside; I think that’s Schedule D – but check as it’s been a long time since I’ve seen an Agency Agreement (we’re self-managed).
ozzietars – as each of your different posts relate to the one core issue of the Strata Manager, more succinct responses may result all the issues were raised by posts to the one topic / thread.
ozzietars – before your post disappears of the bottom of the list, I’ll offer this response.
Provided whatever was resolved with regard to the amended Motion is being actioned, then there’s no need for a EGM to correct the Minutes – just wait until the next planned General Meeting (e.g. AGM) and when the obligatory Motion about accepting or otherwise the Minutes of the last Meeting comes up, don’t accept, and instead amend them at that time.
Re the Agency Agreement, unless you have a very active, committed, and strata-savvy E/C it’s a lot of work!
So depending upon your Owners Corporstion’s preferences I would leave all delegations except perhaps the ones about approving quotations and the payment of invoices, with the Strata Manager because notwithstanding the remaining delegations in the Agreement, Members of the E/C such as the Secretary still retain their roles under the Act, and can exercise those to effectively overrule the Strata Manager when circumstances so dictate.
Blueman – it would have saved me some time if I had read your initial post more closely, and noted that a majority of E/C Members have approved payment of the fencer’s invoice.
Probably like you, they’re happy for the Sinking Fund to be used to pay for the costs of their fences, and that’s all well and good until such time as one of their fences is damaged and your O/C is expected to also pay for that, or worse still when a legitimate expense occurs and there’s insufficient money in the Sinking Fund to pay for it!
Exercises of expedience such as this really annoy me, as the costs of preparing a proper scope-of-work, a more detailed quotation for each Lot, and properly convening an E/C Meeting to consider those (including providing a written Agenda to each Owner 72 hours in advance) would add about 5% to the total cost of the whole exercise.
Anyway I’ve read your last post more closely this time, and as the issue is “more or less resolved”, I guess this puts and end to it!
Matt – many Special By-Laws (SBL) that permit the keeping of pets stipulate that they’re not to be on the Common Property at all unless they’re restrained and/or being held by their Owners.
So perhaps ask your friend to in the first instance check compliance by both her and the other party with the provisions of that SBL and to then, in the light of that, consider whether any legal action could be taken or be justified in the circumstances, and if so by what process that might best be commenced – such as with the assistance of Community Justice Centre (in NSW) if she considers that the other party has indeed breached that SBL.
ozzietars – the benefit to your Strata Manager amounts to 20% of the premium paid by your Owners Corporation to its Insurer, and people like me ask what Strata Managers do consequent to receiving that benefit, and why they and their Association/s argued so strongly against a NSW State Government proposal to make such commissions illegal?
It made absolutely no sense to me why a self-managed Plan such as mine, obviously with no Strata Manager, couldn’t get 20% straight of the top of our Premium, and despite years of asking I never received a sensible or logical answer.
So last year, I wrote to our long-time insurers and asked whether, on the basis of our loyalty, our documented efforts to regularly identify and correct risks (that I supplied to them), and our good claims record, they would review our Premium.
The result was a very succinct e-mail response, advising that the Premium that they’d already provided on our “invitation to renew” would be reduced by 22%, amounting to almost $1,800; better than a poke in the eye with a blunt stick I say!
As for possible Strata Insurers, there’s one who’s banner appears in the scrolling display above the Login panel on this website, and an internet search will likely reveal four (4) others (in NSW). In my experience, base premiums seem around the same between insurers, but a couple of the more specialist ones provide optional covers that do vary both in availability, scope, and cost.
Felix – a hard-line approach with the doors would be around the fact that the Owners Corporation is only required to properly maintain its Common Property, and to renew or replace any fixtures and fittings (such as doors & windows) only where maintenance and/or repair won’t in the O/C’s opinion render such items “serviceable”; such as where the costs of repair exceeds that of a replacement item.
So with that and past situations at your Plan in mind, and if the existing doors and windows in the Lot are serviceable, then your Owners Corporation could refuse to pay the costs of their replacement and to instead consent to the Owner paying for that as part of their proposed renovation.
The magnesite is another story, where I’d recommend waiting until the Report by a Consultant of the O/C’s choosing is received, and from which it can then be determined whether maintenance is in fact necessary in the renovating Owner’s Lot, and if so whether remediation or removal of the magnesite is the recommended solution.
If no maintenance is necessary then the Owner may be given consent by the O/C to themselves remove the magnesite at their cost, and if remediation or removal is recommended, then the O/C should do that at its cost.
By the way, why is a Special By-Law necessary in addition to the passing of a Special Resolution granting the O/C’s consent to the Owner’s proposed renovations? The O/C has already accepted responsibility for the maintenance of balcony doors and windows, so does it wish to make renovating Owner/s responsible for the maintenance of some additional items of Common Property within Lots?
Blueman – in the first instance the replacement of fences between individual townhouses is usually the responsibility of the Owners concerned, or of the Owners Corporation and the Owner/s if the fence adjoins Common Property, or of the Owners Corporation (O/C) and the Owner of an adjoining property if it’s a boundary fence (i.e. between the Strata Plan and the property next door).
So unless your Plan is atypical, and for some reason the fences between townhouses are shown as Common Property (i.e. thick black as opposed to dashed or thin lines) on the Strata Title Plan, then I don’t know why the Strata Manager arranged for and now wishes to pay for the fencer’s works from the O/C’s funds.
Notwithstanding any of the above, your own investigations would have no doubt revealed that a colourbond™ style fence can be installed with sloping panels to accommodate the local topography, and so there may be an “argument” that fencer shouldn’t be paid until such time as whoever it is that’s paying is satisfied with the work in its entirety.
The only problem that I can foresee, and which regrettably may be the case, would be where the Strata Manger as opposed to the O/C has simply selected a fencer who’s known to them, and without any specification or a quotation outlining the agreed scope-of-work, has just given them the go ahead.
As your Strata Manager is pushing for an approval to pay the fencer, I’m guessing that my assumptions about who organised the work is correct, and whilst you’re nonetheless correct by insisting that the Executive Committee shouldn’t approve the fencer’s payment until such time as it’s satisfied with the work, the “argument” around that position is that it may be difficult to defend unless there was an agreed scope-of-work and that either hasn’t been followed or there are defects in workmanship as opposed to just with that (scope).
It may well be prudent for the E/C to list the items that it would like to see corrected or changed, to request the fencer to provide a price to rectify those, and to try negotiating a price around that; clear defects excepted.
Apart from the fact that a proposed By-Law is not binding upon occupants until it’s Registered with the Plan of Strata Title, and any that are eventually Registered must be listed individually for discussion and possible amendment at the first General Meeting of the Owners Corporation, an animal’s weight is a ridiculous criterion that’s very likely unenforceable – like what would happen if your dog weighed 14kG upon arrival at your Unit and then ate like a horse thereafter?
So don’t worry about it; your dog’s probably just big-boned anyway!
ozzietars said…. What is the process to follow for the EC to convene an EGM if the manager delays or fails to do so after being instructed by the E/C?
Jimmy’s advice is as usual correct if your Executive Committee (E/C) wishes to rescind all the delegations granted to its Strata Manager in their Agency Agreement, but it’s important to consider that notwithstanding those delegations, the Owners Corporation (O/C) remains in the position of the Plan’s “principal manager” and under Sect 29(2) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) your E/C may itself still exercise any of its prescribed functions, including the convening an EGM; delegations or otherwise.
So if your E/C has voted to convene an EGM and its Strata Manager (S/M) delays or fails to act on an instruction to do that, then the Secretary should themselves prepare and distribute an Agenda, perhaps including an additional item to not only remove delegations from the S/M as Jimmy advised, but perhaps to remove them!
Sect 27(2) of the SCMA applies, but check the termination clause in your Agency Agreement and ensure that your E/C has a Proposal from an replacement S/M to put to the EGM so that there’s a continuity of service and a smooth hand-over of the O/C’s records etc.
We seem to be drifting off-topic a little, but in response to Peter’s question about whether a licence to use common property under NSW Legislation has applications in addition to parking, the answer is YES – although parking is the most common in my experience.
In an attempt to summarise and clarify the position that in my opinion applies to 1006’s situation:
- The Executive Committee may give someone “permission” to use the common property for a specific, short term application such as for a few weeks to park a tradesperson’s vehicle or trailer on the common property so that it’s closer to an owner’s Lot whilst they’re working there.
- A “licence” to use the common property applies to something more permanent such as to regularly store a boat / trailer near an owner’s Lot, where the decision needs to be made by the Owners Corporation on the basis of a specific Motion placed on the Agenda of General Meeting, where conditions such as a payment by the proponent usually apply, and where a special resolution is required in order for the Motion to pass the vote (i.e. ≥75% in favour by unit entitlement; a “poll vote”), OR;
- A situation where an Owner wants to not only use the common property in some permanent manner, but also wants to change it in some way such as by adding some permanent structure such as a pergola, over which the proponent and not all owners would have exclusive use. The process here is the same as in #2 (above) with the additional requirement of a Special By-Law being concurrently approved (at the General Meeting) IF the Owners Corporation wants to make the proponent responsible for maintaining and repairing whatever it is that they’re adding to or altering on its common property; which would generally be the case.
To conclude, whilst a “permission” and a “licence” under examples #1 & #2 can have a sunset clause and/or an annual review say at each General Meeting (AGM) where those present could amend or rescind the licence, a grant of exclusive use such as in #3 can only be withdrawn if the Lot Owner concerned agrees to that in advance and in writing; that is the original Owner as the proponent and any subsequent owner of that Lot.
A general meeting of the company can, by way of a simple majority vote, resolve to reallocate the shares of its members, but you will need some basis for that reallocation, and that’s a valuation of almost the same scope as will be needed for the proposed conversion to Strata Title.
So perhaps initiate discussions between company representatives and some Registered Valuers with Strata experience, with the objective of selecting one to in the first instance undertake a valuation of all existing Lots in order to substantiate a reallocation of shares now, and secondly to form the basis of a later determination of the units-of-entitlement of those Lots if the conversion to Strata Title is later approved.