@kiwipaul said:
@SMO said:
If anyone bothered to read the mountain of submissions regarding strata reform then they would know the issue was owners in existing strata plans not being able to get their OC to act reasonably.The reform does nothing to address the issue.
If the owners cannot get the OC to act reasonably it is the fault of the owners as they are the OC. Bylaws can be changed at a GM or AGM by a vote of 75% (of those present) of owners in favour.
If you don’t have the support of the owners to pass a new bylaw or motion maybe you are a minority and want to force changes on the majourity.
I got this in a Teys Lawyers FAQ sheet the other day.
It is a general misconception that you require 75% of all voters present (either personally or by proxy) to vote in favour of a proposed motion. In fact a special resolution is passed only after a poll is taken at the meeting and not more than 25% in value of the votes, by persons present (either personally or by proxy) and entitled to vote, are against the motion. The value of a vote cast by a person entitled to vote in respect of a lot is equal to the unit entitlement of that lot:
cl.18(2) sch.2 of the Act.
The point of the post was that the issue in the reform submissions was not whether or not a group of owners were a majority or a minority but about OCs being reasonable or unreasonable.
The idea that what the majority wants constitutes something reasonable is not always correct, especially in strata. Are OC’s like lynch mobs where the majority rules regardless of whether or not they being reasonable? Some people would like to think so.
I could list numerous SCS matter where the Adjudicator or Member allowed an animal after the OC refused to allow the animal.
The reform does not address the issue expressed in the submissions.
Feel free to explain how it does.