Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Our Plan is 27 Lots, but I use a “cloud computing” program by Xero Accounting, that I’ve found to be excellent in all respects (e.g. ease of use, reporting, on-line support); even though its capability will exceed your needs.
You can get a lower monthly subscription if your Owners Corporation can meet not-for-profit criteria.
The pipe that you’re referring to would have been originally necessary to bring the Water Utility’s supply to the block of land where your Plan is now located, and it would have been installed by a Plumbing Contractor engaged by the Builder / Developer.
So in the view of that Water Utility (Hunter Water in this case), the Owners Corporation of a Strata Development is now expecting them to accept responsibility for all on-going maintenance, repairs, and replacement of a section of underground pipework of an unknown standard, that was installed by “others”, and which currently services a single development via a single water meter.
This has been a bone of contention between Water Utilities and property owners for many years, with one argument being that in most instances (but not all, and not recently) the old Water Boards supervised the construction of these “main-to-meter” installations, and should therefore be prepared to take-over the ongoing maintenance / repairs of the completed works. A counter-argument was that if the pipe supplied a single Development, it was private, and that the installing plumber was not Contracted to the Water Utility.
Anyway, as you have now found out the compromise position was that the Water Utility can at its discretion take-over the responsibility for maintaining main-to-meter pipework having a “small diameter” (in your case <40mm), on the basis that these small-scale installations could not be as easily be “mucked-up” by plumbing contractors.
So it’s going to cost each Owner in your Plan $500; not the answer you want, but hopefully you’ll now better understand the rationale behind your Water Utility’s position.
To reiterate, a Special Levy is determined in precisely the same way as any other Levy; by a simple majority vote by Owners present in person and by proxy at a General Meeting.
“mattb” is correct by advising that as an alternative to a Special Levy, the Owners Corporation (O/C) could raise funds equal to those required to reimburse the Sinking Fund by raising a loan. That mechanism does indeed provide the O/C with an ability to make the necessary reimbursement in total, and to stagger the repayments over time with interest.
However depending upon the circumstances, the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (the Act) provides some similar benefits as it only prescribes the time frame for the O/C resolving a repayment structure, and is silent about the repayment term.
In my opinion, the priorities for “basjan27” are to ensure that a General Meeting is convened to resolve the means by which the reimbursement to the Sinking Fund will be made (e.g. a Special Levy), to resolve the structure of that (e.g. the $ & the term), and to resolve to place some restrictions on the E/C’s ability to approve spending in the absence of a prior endorsement by the O/C.
Monies borrowed from the Sinking Fund must be repaid via a Special Levy, the structure of which must be resolved by simple majority at a General Meeting of Owners within 3 months of the date of the initial borrowing. So the Owners Corporation has no choice other than to pass the Special Levy!
Before the Agenda for the prescribed General Meeting is prepared, you would do well to ensure that the compulsory Motion about whether or not any spending restrictions are placed on the Executive Committee (E/C) is included, and that the Meeting invokes that by requiring appropriate restrictions on spending for any / all matters relative to the approved budget for each (e.g. <5% above), so that the E/C’s profligate spending habits are curbed.
A Proxy is considered valid provided it is signed and dated, and given to the Secretary of the Executive Committee at or before the General Meeting, or a minimum 24 hours before that Meeting in the case of a “large strata scheme” (i.e. >100 Lots).
So by default, the Secretary holds all Proxies.
A Poll Vote may be requested by any Proprietor at the Meeting, and as this changes the vote counting mechanism not the Motion itself, the elections made by Proprietors submitting Proxies in advance of the Meeting still stand for those Motions.
The Agenda for a General Meeting, including a Proxy Form and all prescribed inclusions, has to be served on each Owner a minimum 7 days prior to the date of the Meeting, and as there’s no mention of calendar days or business days in the Act, you need to receive that Agenda by this Thursday in order to then hold a valid Meeting.
Regarding your proposal to change Strata Managers (SM), ensure that the Proxy Form includes the specific paragraph on this matter (para 3), and that you read the Agency Agreement carefully, as it customary for a minimum three (3) months written notice to be given to the SM in those circumstances.
Whilst I’m not for one minute suggesting that an Owners Corporation should neglect or delay acting on its responsibilities to properly maintain its Common Property, using possible fines and personal liability under the new Work Health & Safety (WH&S) Act as the proverbial Sword of Damocles is a bit over-the-top.
Whilst I agree that amendments to the WH&S Act capture mixed-use Strata Schemes (i.e. with shops or similar incorporated), there’s a general exemption for fully residential Strata Schemes where purely domestic activities are undertaken.
Once the Plan is Registered, the Owners Corporation (O/C) is “formed”; that is, it exists as a legal entity. The first Annual General Meeting (AGM) must be convened by the Developer within two (2) months of the day that sufficient Owners (other than the Developer) have settled on the purchase of Lots such that the combined Units of Entitlement for those Lots represents at least 30% of the total for the Plan.
If the Developer does not convene that Meeting within the prescribed period they’re liable to a fine of at least $1100, and any Owner can then apply to the NSW Consumer, Trader & Tenancy Tribunal for an Adjudicator to make Orders requiring the Meeting to be held.
I can understand why you’re enjoying the levy-free period, but believe me that’s short-sighted as Developers don’t spend much (if anything) on maintaining / repairing the Common Property, so the longer the first AGM is delayed the higher the Levies will need to be in order to catch-up.
With regard to your proposed veranda roof, as your Plan’s O/C has existed as a legal entity since your Plan was Registered, NO you shouldn’t build anything that constitutes an alteration or addition to the Common Property, unless of course you want to be the subject of the O/C’s first-ever Resolution – requiring you to demolish it
Your Chairman’s right, because as an alternative to the conventional “sit-down” Meetings, Executive Committees (EC) may have “virtual” Meetings (e.g. telephone or email), and can even have no “Meeting” at all provided the Secretary produces written Agenda including proposed resolutions to all items shown, and obtains the written approval of those resolutions from a majority of Committee Members.
So if the Chairman of your EC refuses to convene a “sit-down” EC Meeting, a written request (a “requisition”) including the Items to be discussed (e.g. expenditure, removal of the Strata Manager), and signed individually by a minimum 25% of Owners (by Unit Entitlement) will require the convening of a General Meeting (GM) of Owners
With regard to your Plan’s expenditure, that’s a function usually delegated to your Strata Manager under the provisions of the Agency Agreement; with limitations.
A standard limitation is that except with the prior approval of Owners at a General Meeting, no payment may be made against any item that would bring the YTD spend for that item (e.g. grounds maintenance) to an amount that would exceed its approved annual budget allocation, plus 10%. Further limitations, or a decision to have none at all, must be resolved one way or the other by Owners at each Annual General Meeting (AGM). You would need to check the Minutes of your Plan’s last AGM to ascertain which if any restrictions on spending apply.
So far as removing your Strata Manager (SM) is concerned, before submitting the “requisition” for the GM, you should check what termination conditions apply under your Plan’s Agency Agreement (3 months written notice is normally required), and then move to place an Item on the Agenda for that GM in those terms.
Hi Phelbe, unless your Plan has a By-law to the contrary, repairs to common wall/s within the bathroom (both sides in your case) and to the bathroom floor only are the responsibility of the Owners Corporation (O/C).
A word of caution though – whilst it’s appropriate for the O/C to coordinate the repairs, all areas repaired and paid for by the O/C become its on-going responsibility. So ensure that the Contractor/s who quote for and undertake those repairs provide two (2) price schedules; one for those works for which the O/C is responsible and the other for all remaining works for which the Lot Owner is responsible, with the resultant invoices being then paid separately by the parties.
In that way the status quo is preserved, in that the O/C’s on-going responsibilities are as they were prior to the waterproofing works.
Let me explain the insurance issue and who’s responsible for what in the same way that I’ve used over and over again with my Proprietors:
If you imagine that your Strata Unit is an empty shoe box, then the care, maintenance, and repair of that box and the insurance coverage for it is the responsibility of the Owners Corporation.
If you place internal dividers inside your shoe box so as to make compartments, and then place your loose personal items inside, then the care, maintenance, repair, and replacement of those items and the insurance coverage for them is your responsibility as the Owner.
If you then place some other items inside the compartments and glue them to the sides of the box, to the underside of the box’s lid, or to the base of the box, then the care, maintenance, repair, and routine replacement of those items is also your responsibility BUT if they’re damaged by an “event” like if something glued to the base of the box suddenly became unstuck, fell over, and broke then the Owner’s Corporation’s Insurance will cover repairs and/or the replacement of that item and any repairs to the base of the box.
If that’s clear, then consider:
- The shoe box as the perimeter walls, the base as the floor, and the lid as the ceiling of your Unit
- The internal dividers as the internal walls, and the compartments as the rooms within your Unit
- The loose personal items are your furnishings (contents)
- The glued items are things like the toilet pan, shower base and screen, sink/basin, wash tub, kitchen cupboards, cook tops, wall ovens, built-in wardrobes, and ceiling light fittings.
As with all simplified analogies such as this, there are exceptions – but they’re few.
I hope this works for maxd12, nell, and others.
Chak is correct, but there’s one further scenario.
In situations where the satellite dish is providing Pay-TV services (e.g. Foxtel), even to one Owner, the dish is usually the property of the Service Provider, and Executive Committees (on behalf of the OC) often enter into Service Agreements with these Providers that indemnify the OC by amongst other things stipulating that any damage caused to Common Property during the installation/removal of satellite dishes and all on-going maintenance and repairs of them are the responsibility of that Provider.
However as Chak has said, IF the satellite dish has been installed under any other arrangement, such as to receive overseas-based TV programs, then your OC would first be required to properly resolve (at a General Meeting) to permit such installations, which constitute an alteration / addition to the Common Property, under the conditions contained in a Special By-Law approved by >75% of Owners present personally or by proxy at that Meeting.
If the preceding paragraph is the situation, you need to write to the Secretary of your EC and inform them that the satellite dish installation is illegal under the Provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (Ch3, Pt2, Cl 65A & B).
Renovations by Owners to the Common Property of the Plan can only be permitted under the provisions of a Special By-Law that’s been resolved by >75% of Owners present in person or by proxy at a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation (O/C) voting in favour of its Registration.
Whilst it’s a good idea for Owners to consult with the Executive Committee (EC) to as you say “iron out any concerns … and facilitate O/C approval”, the O/C cannot approve any renovations (alterations/additions) to the Common Property unless that Special By-Law (above) is in place and properly Registered, and even then, only in accordance with the provisions of that Special By-Law – which could include the requirement for Engineers to be commissioned by the EC if that’s what was agreed to at the General Meeting.
So….it’s fine for your EC Member to introduce a Special By-Law to all Owners at a General Meeting, where if a quorum is present it’s then up to the majority (>75%) to agree to the proposed provisions or to reject those.
Members of the Executive Committee (EC) are appointed by the Owners Corporation (O/C). So I gather from what you’re saying that a General Meeting (GM) of your O/C was convened, that Agendas were issued in advance to all Owners for that GM and for the subsequent EC Meeting, that somehow the Caretaker was able to convince some Owners to nominate themselves or to be nominated for positions on the Executive Committee (EC), and to then accept those nominations at the GM and thereby replace the existing Members, and that all of the above proceedings were minuted and distributed to all Owners.
If the above did not happen, then I’d suggest that the Provisions of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996) were breached (Pt3, Div1 & Sch3), and that the appointment of a new EC is invalid and could therefore be overturned by, in the first instance, you as an individual Owner or a number of like-minded Owners lodging this Form with OFT.
The OFT would also be interested to hear that your Caretaker is using the services of unlicensed persons to undertake works having a value>$1,000 – particularly as air conditioning and boiler works require Licensed Contractors irrespective of the value of the works.
If your Plan has a Strata Manager, I’d give them a courtesy “heads-up” about what you and (hopefully) other Owners intend to do about the concerns that you have raised.
G’day Strugs, we seem to be reading each other’s posts lately, so …
Answer: I’m not one for unnecessary regulation or paperwork, but strictly and practically speaking YES, as even though the works involved are on private items, the contractor/s undertaking those works will need to traverse the Common Property where the O/C may wish to impose conditions (e.g. parking, storage of materials, use of walkways etc). Furthermore, as the works may create a disturbance to the occupants of adjoining Lots (e.g. vibration), the O/C may wish to include some reasonable restrictions on the times for some work activities.
So if there’s no written request by your Owner for the O/C’s consent to the works, there’s no opportunity for it to include some reasonable conditions of the types suggested (above) in that consent, where it may also be advisable to take the opportunity to make reference to that relevant By-Law that your Plan’s put in place under S62(3) of the SCMA; just for the record and to show (to future Owners of the Lot) that the works proposed were completed after the Registration of that By-Law.