Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
AJP – the fact that your resident bully may be elected Chairman is of little consequence, as the holder of that position has no more authority than any other Member of the Executive Committee; no casting vote or any other privilege.
Furthermore, the Legislation requires that an Agenda be produced and distributed to all Owners at least 72 hours in advance of each Executive Committee Meeting, so Owners who regard any Motion/s as contentious may themselves attend the Meeting or >30% of them (by unit entitlement) can veto such Motion/s before they’re even discussed at a Meeting.
There are sufficient safeguards provided by the Legislation to stifle the activities of Executive Committee bullies – what’s that saying about all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing? Perhaps you need to enlist the support of some good men (and women) in your Plan, and have them ready to do something whenever the bully is at work!
Johnty – it sounds like you have an interesting Strata Plan what with Owners trading units of entitlement (ref: your other post), but in answer to your post here, as the ceiling of your Lot is merely there to conceal pipework and services to other Lots, both that ceiling and the space between it and the underside of your above neighbour’s floor is Common Property – entirely the responsibility of your Owners Corporation (O/C).
Neither your neighbour nor their plumber may do anything to do with the former’s new shower installation without the prior written consent of your O/C by way of a special resolution at a General Meeting, where >75% of those in attendance must vote in favour in order for your neighbour’s Motion to pass, with that percentage being determined by the units of entitlement (UOE) of those voting and the total UOE of those present and entitled to vote (including proxies).
It is through the procedures of that Meeting where you may express your concerns about the proposal, including those you mention about noise from the shower (if consented) and during the works themselves, and your O/C as a whole can consider other implications such as who will be responsible for the on-going maintenance and repair of the proposed shower (e.g. floor / tiles / waterproof membrane), possible consequences arising from alterations to any common services (e.g. water supply and drainage serving other Lots), and how the O/C may be indemnified from any or indeed all of that (i.e. by a Special By-Law).
What you’ve been receiving is a “Preliminary Notice” of a General Meeting, and whilst I always issue those as is provides Owners with both a reminder that a General Meeting is on the horizon and an “invitation” for additional Agenda items to be submitted, it’s not a requirement of the Strata Schemes Management Act in NSW – and mores the pity!
On the basis of your other post concerning a Motion to elect an Executive Committee, it appears that your current Strata Manager (SM) is doing things strictly by the book, so your solution is to (at least) elect a Committee, to elect the Office Bearers, to formally vote to require your SM to provide “Preliminary Notices” in advance of all future General Meetings, and for the newly elected Secretary to provide a written instruction in that regard to the SM just before your O/C delegates that and other functions to them in their Agency Agreement.
To respond to your last question first, NO the rules haven’t changed, it’s just that your Owners Corporation hasn’t been following them.
The “rules”, specifically Schedule 2 Clause 34 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996), states that compulsory Motions on the Agenda for Annual General Meetings (AGM) MUST include one for the Owners Corporation (O/C) to elect the Members of its Executive Committee (E/C) and to decide the number of those – which may not exceed nine(9).
The positions of Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer are then decided on the basis of a vote by the elected Members, usually at an E/C Meeting convened immediately after the AGM, and it’s then that any nominations (including self-nominations) may be voted down if that’s the majority view of those in attendance.
In circumstances such as those at your Plan where it appears that an active E/C is not desired by a majority of Owners, then the functions (but not the positions) of Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer may be delegated to your Strata Manager, but only under a term of a Strata Management Agency Agreement that they’re required to hold with the O/C.
NO….Sect 166 of the Queensland Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act (2008) applies, and as in NSW the premises has to be both individually metered and “water efficient” in terms of low-flow shower heads and tap fittings.
Perhaps check your copy of the General Tenancy Agreement for your property, as the above would be listed therein.
Alinka – of course your AGM was legal, but I still think that your Strata Manager is confusing the requirements for Executive Committee Meetings with those for General Meetings where, common courtesy aside, there’s no requirement for those in attendance (ie the O/C) to formally agree to your husband speaking.
All things considered, I’m inclined to agree with your Strata Manager’s assessment that the matter is not all that important in the overall scheme of things, and so minuting that you husband wasn’t permitted to speak is not worth persuing in my opinion.
As I suggested, if your husband is better able to express your joint opinions on matters to do with the management of your Plan, then grant him your proxy and he can speak to his hearts content.
I think that both the Owner and your Strata Manager may be confusing the procedures for Executive Committee Meetings, where non-members including Owners cannot participate without the agreement of the Committee, with those for General Meetings – because so far as I’m aware there’s nothing prescribed in the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) that would prevent your husband from speaking (but not voting) during the proceedings of a General Meeting.
Whilst the Strata Manager (Chair) would certainly be able to rule your husband out-of-order if his comments were in their opinion obstructing the procedures of the Meeting, there’s nothing to prevent his reasoned participation, so if the latter was the case then I believe that what your unfriendly Owner requested and your Strata Manager agreed to was incorrect.
You could of course grant your Proxy to your husband for the next General Meeting if you feel that he can better express your jointly held views.
The advice provided by the Department of Fair Trading is correct and the Sections of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (SCMA) that you’ve no doubt already found substantiate that position of only persons entitled to vote at a General Meeting being able to requisition Motions to be placed on its Agenda.
The only complication may be if the Agency Agreement (Contract) that your Owners Corporation holds with the Strata Manager has delegated them the role of Secretary, where that position is responsible for producing the Agenda for General Meetings, including Motions.
If it’s not too late, have the elected Secretary (of your Executive Committee) write to the Strata Manager to advise that they’re assuming the role of Secretary for the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), and instructing them to remove the Motion re their re-appointment from the Agenda.
Failing that, once the EGM commences, rather than implying acceptance of the Strata Manager’s Motion by again deferring it, you (as Chairman) have the ability to rule it out-of-order on the basis that it is in conflict with the provisions of the SCMA.
Before your Owners Corporation further contemplates termination of its Agency Agreement, have a careful read through all of its provisions – particularly those applying to it rolling-over if not renewed, and to the means of termination itself including the notice that the O/C must provide.
Peter – your tenants can’t be held responsible for amounts arising from leakage, but in NSW the Residential Tenancies Act prescribes that where a property is individually metered for water, the tenant is required to pay for all water so consumed.
So upon receipt of each Water Supply Invoice for your property, all you need to do is pay the total amount shown which will typically be itemised for service availability (water & sewerage) and for the metered water usage, and then provide a copy of that paid Invoice to your tenants (via your Property Manager / Agent) who must then reimburse you for the metered water usage component of the total invoice (only).
Felix – I don’t understand why your Owners Corporation (O/C) would be bothered with a report commissioned by an Owner, when you say that the O/C itself commissioned its own report and engaged the services of a consultant to examine the very same magnesite problem.
However if your O/C is after just corroboration, IF the payment of the Owner’s costs was (as it should have been) made on the basis of an Invoice provided by the Engineer engaged by that Owner, then (as a Chartered Engineer myself) I can advise that it’s customary for professional courtesy to be afforded to the extent that the former would, as a minimum, share his/her then findings with the O/C’s Engineer.
So perhaps you’ll need to arrange that audit, and hope that irrespective of to whom payment was made, there’s a record of an Invoice made out to somebody by that Structural Engineer so that you can by-pass their uncooperative Client.
Regulations don’t make a specific reference to safety chains, but I recall Australian Standards stipulating that there should be no article fitted to a fire (main) door to a Unit that could impede its full and proper closure; that’s why automatic closers are stipulated!
So with that emphasis on full and proper closure, an item such as a safety chain when fitted by Residents to such a door could, when unlatched and hanging down, become an “impediment” if it became wedged between the door and the jamb.Unlikely maybe, but possible yes – so on that basis I think that your Plan’s Fire Inspection Contractor is correct, and even though those Residents who have fitted safety chains are not themselves breaking any Law, the fire rated (main) doors so affected don’t then comply with all aspects of the Standards upon which such legal compliance is assessed.
As mentioned, these doors are required to be fitted with a functioning automatic closer, so I’m wondering how it is that you and other residents are able to leave them ajar, but in any event it’s better for Residents’ fire safety for those safety chains to be removed and for entry doors to be kept fully closed for BOTH fire safety and Residents’ security.
As your Owners Corporation (O/C) owns those doors and is additionally responsible for the building’s fire safety, it in my opinion needs to write to all Residents advising that any items such as safety chains and door stops that could impede the proper closing of entry doors together with any keyed deadlocks that could impeded egress needs to be immediately removed, and that any such items that are still in place at the time of the next Fire Safety Inspection will be removed by the Contractor.
As for the costs, whilst the O/C could recover the Contractor’s costs of removing safety chains etc for those Residents who then haven’t, for something as important as fire safety I wouldn’t bother.
If in any doubt, your O/C should consider the consequences of a fire event occurring in the building at a time when even one fire rated (main) door to a Unit is ajar due to a safety chain, door stop, or something similar impeding its full and proper closure – when its been made aware of likely consequences.
Sarah – whilst your Landlord is required to ensure that the premises is maintained in a state of “reasonable repair”, in practical terms that really applies to habitable areas, not the garage.
Nonetheless the possible presence of asbestos containing residues in the garage renders that area unusable, and the environmental testing and/or remediation of that area is, once you formally advise them, a matter for your Landlord to arrange.
If by some chance the “garage” that you’re referring to is actually carspace, then then parts of it may be the Common Property of the Owners Corporation (O/C), but even then the environmental testing and/or remediation works that you’re requesting would be a matter between your Landlord and their O/C – nothing to do with you and nothing for you to pay for.
So if you haven’t done so already, you need to write to your Property Manager (Rental Agent) advising them of your concerns, of your consequent unwillingness to use the garage (that you’re paying for), and giving them say 7 days to commission appropriate environmental testing as a matter of urgency, say a further 14 days to attend to any remedial works and/or to clean-up works (depending upon the test results), and advising that should they not meet your timeframe for testing then you will arrange for that and, irrespective of the result/s, seek a full reimbursement of your costs up to the O/C’s quoted $500 per test from the Landlord and in default by seeking Orders in that regard, including for economic loss (e.g. paying or a garage that you’re unable to use) from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Finally, the amount quoted by your Landlord’s O/C is excessive, so as a contingency, contact Safe Environments (https://www.safeenvironments.com.au/), they’re very helpful and on the last occasion that I used them (2013) charged $90 for the asbestos testing of each sample delivered to their Blacktown NSW premises.
stax – I would have thought that the installation of plantation shutters would fall under the provisions of Model By-Law 17 relating to the appearance of the lot as viewed from the outside, where all that is necessary is the consent of the Executive Committee (on behalf of the Owners Corporation) due to the existence of that already applicable By-Law.
The removal of windows and doors from the wall adjoining balconies and the replacement of those with stackers is a complication, particularly as your Strata Plan was apparently registered pre July 1974 (?) – hence your comment about the ownership and maintenance of those windows and doors being the Lot Owners’ responsibility.
If registration was pre July 1974 then the windows, doors, and the entire wall to which the stackers are proposed to be fitted would be part of the Lot/s, and as I’m not entirely sure that anything additional would need to be attached to the floor slab (which is Common Property) as Owners would merely be replacing a timber frame with a metal track, I’m of the opinion that Model By-Law 17 would be again applicable, and that consent could be properly granted by the Executive Committee (E/C).
Whether the proposal is shutters or stackers, the wording of any consent could incorporate conditions such as for style, configuration, and colour (for both), and a reaffirming of Owners’ responsibility for the on-going maintenance and repair of the stackers in accordance with what’s shown as the boundaries of Lots and of Common Property on the Strata Title Plan.
As Owners’ proposals would need to be included on the Agenda for an E/C Meeting together with plans / drawings / specifications etc and be distributed to all Owners a minimum 7 days in advance, any of whom could attend the Meeting and actively participate with the consent of the Secretary, the process would be no different from that of a General Meeting except for the fact that only E/C Members would be voting.
The NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) is silent on the subject of electronic voting, but the interpretation that I use for our self-managed Plan is that it’s an adjunct to a physical Meeting, and whilst on the subject of the Act, it would only apply at Sect 65A if the shutters and/or stackers were considered to be additions or alterations to the Common Property (which in my opinion they aren’t because the wall and items within are part of the Lots) or a new structure erected on that Common Property (which an attached new track, as a replacement, would not be in my opinion).
I think you’ve covered most of the arguments for and against; it all comes down to a possibly subjective assessment of just how much the shutters / stackers affect the appearance of the Lot as viewed from outside. Maybe do some lobbying amongst like-minded Owners in advance of anything being put to the E/C.
As you did the right thing by seeking and obtaining permission to place hangers in the wall that shouldn’t affect your outgoing Condition Report, so I’d leave them in place for the in-coming tenant.
If in doubt, contact Tenants NSW (tenants.org.au) who will provide advice.
KWP – I do understand your point; it’s one you regularly make.
However even though its unitowner1 ‘s Owners Corporation (O/C) who should be meeting all the costs of both rectifying past errors in the management of its Strata Plan and properly considering new renovation works such as those proposed, I guess that any decision about whether to handle such things in the right (legally correct) way or to do them on the sly is a conundrum that individual Owners and indeed O/C’s need to resolve.
At this point in time at least, I remain of the opinion that irrespective of the scale of the individual matters under consideration it’s preferable to manage those in a legally compliant way in the first place, and to thereby avoid future problems, resultant conflicts, and perhaps most of all the foibles of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) where if things haven’t gone totally pear-shaped they then will!