@Help said:
… is the notice to comply to be decided by a vote count or unit entitlements, is there to be an agenda, are minutes to be issued, who is responsible if notice is issued who enforces compliance.
Lots of questions all wrapped up in one post so here are your answers in order:
1. If the meeting is an Executive Committee meeting, then the decision is by a simple show of hands. Unit entitlements don’t count and neither do proxy votes (unless they are proxy votes by absent EC members, which have to be agreed on by attending members of the EC).
If it is a properly constituted general meeting – with proper agendas etc – then votes can be by unit entitlements and proxy votes are allowed provided they are on the correct official form.
2. If it’s an executive committee meeting, an agenda must be issued 72 hours before the meeting. If it’s an extraordinary general meeting, an agenda must be sent out 7 days before the meeting. In both cases, minutes must be recorded and supplied to owners.
If there is no agenda and no minutes, it’s not an official meeting although you can reach an informal resolution to simply abide by your by-laws.
3. Let’s assume there is a clear breach of by-laws and you and the other owner have issued a Notice to Comply (which must be on THIS FORM ) and the miscreant has ignored it then the Owners Corp (you and the other guy) can apply for a penalty to be applied, using THIS FORM.
However, if you are on your own on this – the third party doesn’t want to get involved – you can take the matter to Fair Trading for compulsory mediation and then pursue it through NCAT for orders and penalties, if need be. You’ll find out more about this HERE.
All said and done, you are much better to resolve this internally and informally because, if nothing else, these guys are your neighbours. So here is a simple strategy you can follow if you wish.
a) Establish first of all if the neighbour’s behaviour is a clear breach of by-laws (e.g. parking on common property). All by-laws are different for different schemes so check what yours say. Then, before you get into the nitty gritty of the argument, address what it is that you want rather than how you can make that happen. In your case, you want unimpeded access. So the first question to be addressed is, what can your fellow owners do to make this happen?
b) Even if they dig their heels in, try not to make it personal – why they are being selfish is not the issue, the consequences are.
c) The fact that they have “always done this” has no bearing on the issue. Perhaps the previous residents didn’t care, didn’t know they could do anything about it or felt too intimidated. That is not your problem. Explain that opinions don’t matter as much as by-laws and they won’t be able to change the by-laws because even with the other owner onside, they will never reach the required 75 percent.
d) If they still won’t budge, explain that you would rather not pursue this through Fair Trading and NCAT but you will if you have to. There are mechanisms not only to force them to abide by the building’s by-laws (or be fined up to $5500) but to pay for the cost of any actions you may have to take to have the by-laws enforced (you can apply not to pay the portion of the levies to cover the legal costs).
e) As a last resort, if the other owners aren’t prepared to abide by the by-laws of the building, you might apply to have a strata manager (of your choice, which is a mandatory condition) employed to run the scheme on the grounds that the Owners Corporation is no longer functioning for the benefit of all the owners and under the terms of its own by-laws. This will be expensive and the owners will have no say in the running of the building for the duration of the strata manager’s appointment. This is not what you want to do but it is a last resort available if there is not other solution.
f) Now go back to the original issue – you want unimpeded access; what can your fellow owners do to make this happen?
What happens [if the] secretary/treasurer/chairman failed in their roles to enforce by laws.
There is no punishment or fine for failure to be a good office-bearer but there can be very unpleasant consequences, as outlined in item (f) above.