• Creator
    Topic
  • #62264
    tina
    Flatchatter

    SSMA 2015 (NSW) Section 146 (4) says that the owners corp can delegate the function of issuing a “notice to comply with a by-law” to the strata managing agent.

    My strata plan is self managed.  Therefore,  we have no strata managing agent.

    We would like to be able to delegate this function to one of the office bearers (or strata committee member) but the Act specifically says “strata managing agent”.

    Without a “strata managing agent”, my self managed owners corporation would have to hold either a general meeting or a strata committee meeting and pass a motion to issue the notice.

    It’s more convenient to delegate the function to one person.

    Has anyone else had to deal with this situation?

Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #62270
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

    First things first, section 146(3) of the Act could not be clearer on this:

    (3) A notice [to comply] must not be given unless a resolution approving the issue of the notice, or  the issue of notices for the type of contravention concerned, has first been passed by the owners corporation at a general meeting or by the strata committee of the owners corporation.

    What that means for your scheme is that you have to give three days notice of a committee meeting with the Notice To Comply oon the agenda, either by placing a notice on your noticeboard, if you have one, or by sending it to all owners by mail (or just sliding it under their doors) as per Section 263 of the Act.

    You then hold a Zoom meeting of the committee and pass the resolution, as per Section 146.  If I were on the receiving end of a Notice to Comply that hadn’t been issued by the strata manager or via a committee meeting, I’d challenge it on that basis alone and it would be back to square one for the committee.

    Ironically, there is another thread here where a resident is complaining about strata managers having the power to issue NTCs without reference to the committee.  I think there’s zero chance of your secretary being given that kind of leeway.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by .
Viewing 1 replies (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.