We can only assume either the strata managing agent for building A (which is a different company to the one managing the community association) or a strata lawyer who they may have consulted has provided them with the advice on how to use this part of the act to seek their desired outcome.
I don’t know why you would accept that assumption to be true. And even if it is, I would accept that advice to be valid.
The secretary claims they are acting on behalf of their strata committee (building A) by making the objection to a decision being made by the CA to remove them as secretary.
They are using a clause cloned from the Strata Schemes Management Act which refers to a percentage of owners. I would think they would have to show that sufficient numbers of owners supported their veto for it to stand
I have asked numerous strata managers whom I know for their opinion on this clause, and it certainly appears to be open to the interpretation in which it has been used in this situation.
Yes, it’s open to that interpretation but it’s also open to the interpretation that this is beyond the scope of the relevant section of the Act, is anti democratic and not in keeping with the intention or spirit of the Act.
I will dig further … in the meantime, your strata manager should ask the vetoing member to provide proof or authoritative legal advice that they have a valid power to do this. Failing that, the secretary should stand down, at least until this is resolved.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
- This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by .