Thank you so much for your reply, Whale. At this point it looks like there will be an EGM with the sole purpose of fact finding – Q and A to the owner, in particular, looking at the limited information she provided to get approval for the extensions (ie no mention of gaining exclusive use of common property), with a view to the OC being able to decide for themselves whether she has concealed information to get strata approval, prior to providing different information to the council to get the DA approved.
I will definitely suggest to the OC that they need to get legal advice in relation to how to proceed.
One further question. In relation to the separate piece of common property she has already taken over and constructed a grease trap, the OC may decide to simply sell her this land. If they do, can they set the land sale price per square metre? On suggestion would be that it’s based on the value of the most recent sale in the apartment block, cost per sq/m in the price.
The owner who has built the grease trap may object to a price set by the OC, and may even get a private valuation (valuations are generally much less than appraisals) and insist on this.
To me, it seems that a procedure to get an agreed value is strongest if this takes place before the common property is built on. In such a case, the OC doesn’t HAVE to sell, and the potential purchaser doesn’t HAVE to buy.
Now, though, after the fact, I would think she should not be able to dictate the price. My thoughts are that are that she would have to accept a reasonable price for the land, even if it is a little on the high side. If she didn’t want to accept the price, she would have the option of removing the grease trap and restoring the common property.
She has a bylaw being prepared for the AGM by her lawyer, but this hasn’t happened yet and she hasn’t been granted exclusive use, as is her plan, but she’s pre-empted a successful vote.
A final question. A resolution was passed at the initial meeting to give her permission to build the garage extension and to prepare a bylaw to be voted on. However, if it can be proven that she concealed important information when she presented her plans to the OC, is there any scope to have the approval reversed by the OC, perhaps by a special resolution at a GM? Or, is the OC stuck with having the approval granted, even though there was deception. Note, though, she can’t go ahead with the garage extension without the exclusive use bylaw, but the OC may want to stop her extension plans completely and send her back to square one – needing approval for the plans themselves.
BTW I got a further email from the owner telling me that I was not permitted to speak at an EGM even with a proxy vote. Thanks to this forum (and Fair trading) I know that’s not true. She also informed me that as a tenant, I should direct all my concerns through my landlord’s agent, and should not be participating in any of the informal discussions some owners and I have been having about the situation. She’s stepped up her claims of harassment, and has now warned me that as well as her tenant the restaurant owner who previously threatened me with legal action, she herself may find it necessary to take legal action against me. As there is no basis of her claims of harassment, and, in fact, it’s she that has been emailing me, with me responding politely but firmly, I’m not bothered, and will respond according to the wise words of JimmyT in his previous post
.