#21792
Anonymous

    Charlie’s numbers do not add up unless there are others in arrears.
    The $34000 is made up of admin fund money, sinking fund money (and interest for each component). The sinking fund is not $34k short because someone owes $34k. That is for the OC to sought out

     

    Section 71
    (3) The owners corporation must, not later than 3 months after the disbursement, make a determination under section 76 (1) of an amount sufficient to recoup the amount of the disbursement.

     

    I attended an OFT seminar where it was claimed the OC has 3 months to return the money. Oh no I said. The Act only requires a determination be made; it does not require the money to be repaid in 3 months, if at all. I spoke of the following SCS matter.

    In SCS 12/40868 Member Goldstein was asked to deal with an SP who did not make the determination for over twelve months, and never would have had an owner not put the motion to an AGM. So much for “the OC must” as there is no consequence for failure. The use of the term must over 250 times in the SSMA is so out of order that reform really needs to address it. There is no consequence for failure except in a few special circumstances. It’s appalling language to say must when one does not really have to. I digress.

    The AGM dealt with a motion to raise $72.25 per lot to repay the transfer, from 15 months earlier, which was a bit over $8300. The AGM amended a motion to pay the money back over a ten year period at $800 per year (less than $7 per lot per year).
    The Member had no issue with this and dismissed the application which sought an order to hold an EGM to repay all the “missing” money in the short term.

    The interesting part for me is that the whole sinking fund could end up on a ten year repayment plan based on the concept expressed in this decision. And then there is the matter of if an owner sells then the new owner is left to clean up the mess, i.e. repay the money.

     

    The 10 year plan was included in the SSMA to try to avoid owners buying into money problems left by others. Although not related to future budgetary needs I see this SCS matter as preserving the concept of inheriting money problems.

    Of further interest is that the OC in that matter has not made one of the ‘installments’. The amount is absent from subsequent AGM budgets.

    Personally I think the Member reduced the Section of the Act to a joke and that it was not the intent of the Section to merely require the OC, if they could be bothered, to make a decision. But we have a case to cite that says that is all that is required.