- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
This seems dishonest and verging on corrupt to me, but tell me I'm wrong.
The latest trick our Executive Committee have come up with is to decree that two owners, who have renos underway in breach of a Special By-Law we have about it and without seeking permission in any way, must get Special By-Laws put on the agenda for a General Meeting to have their renovations 'approved'. By the time the meeting happens, of course, the renos will be finished.
The EC and Strata Manager claim this 'the only way to protect the OC' and it 'happens everywhere'.
One of the renovators is the Treasurer who pleaded ignorance of our Special By-Law which is registered and years old. To me his actions in this as an office bearer, in particular, seem really dodgy.
Please tell me, is this really acceptable practice?
-
Replies
-
Unfortunately retrospective motions are an acceptable practice. Apparently they occur quite often as a way to cure a past defect / irregularity or a procedural failure.
Not getting permission / a special by-law before starting the work is a type of procedural failure on the owners part.
What is interesting in your scenario is what happens if their motions fail; then the defect is not cured.
Can you bring the approval motions forward to an EGM rather than wait for the AGM? – and ask they (the renovators) pay for the meeting. An EGM can be held in a mater of weeks if the EC really wants one.
Without knowing what your by-law says, would you consider
- seeking an interim order to have the work stopped
- trying to have the EC / manager send a notice to comply to the existing by-law stating all work must stop until approvals are determined by the OC. This way if they continue the OC can have a go at having the owners fined for failure to comply with the notice if they continue.
I personally think that it is rubbish that some owners just plough forward knowing they are not doing things the right way an then expect the whole OC to roll over and approve whatever they did via a retrospective motion.
I can feel the frustration in your post and the disappointment you have in the “management” of your SP. What is going on is just plain wrong yet the system makes it such an easy thing to get away with – strata has its downsides.
BB is right although retrospective motions can work if they put things right on paper (ie, maintenance of changes to common property become the responsibility of the current and future lot owners, provided they don't transgress other by-laws).
But they shouldn't be used to rubber-stamp common property land grabs or by-law breaches. That's one of the reasons that enforcement of by-laws should be made compulsory in this state … so that the controlling cliques can't pick and choose what to enforce or who should get away with what.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
The strata manager should be asked to drop a letter in asking simply “are your renovations compliant with our by-laws?” The next line should read: “Please be aware that we have the legal right to compel you to restore non-compliant changes to common property (floors and ceilings, for instance) at your expense.
See if that gets anyone's attention – and at least they can't say they weren't warned when the NTC arrives telling them to carpet their floor and replace the ceiling.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Our unit complex went down the road of creating a renovation by-law when it came to my attention the guy next door was intent on knocking down a load-bearing wall. The intention was to also allow for previously unapproved renovations to be approved retrospectively. This “renovation amnesty” was thought to be best way forward in order to get owners to be responsible for their works and any problems if they surface in the future.
The by-law was supposed to be specific to our unit block but it really was very generic and required quite a few changes to the first draft. The committe members found the document to be complex and difficult to understand and consequently the process of getting feedbck was draw out over about 5 weeks. The suggested changes were sent back to the lawyer who had emailed to say that they would be in contact. Many weeks passed. Then it came to my attention that the invoice for the by-law had been paid. When I questioned the Strata Manager his response was that because the committee took so long the payment was finalised and the changes were considered so extensive the OC will now be required to pay additional costs for its completion.
Who the hell pays for work before its finished? And at no point were we told about any deadlines or time restrictions in which to provide ammendments to the first draft of the by-law. Also no pricing schedule for additional work. This just isnt right but I'm not sure there is anything that can be done, except to pay the extra, a half finished by-law is of no use to anyone.
We had a by-law drawn up covering bathrooms and internal plumbing. It took quite a while going back and forth to the lawyer, back to the EC etc etc. It was necessary to ensure that the correct terminology and wording was used for our complex.
We also had cause to contact a strata lawyer regarding an owner who had breached strata by-laws (damaging/changing common property on numerous occasions and refusing to return back to original condition). It also took a long time before we had a document with the correct wording and referring to the correct areas of common property. It was about 5 weeks at least in this instance.
In both instances, the time was worth it. You really do need to read, re-read to make sure it is right. The wrong wording and you are back to the drawing board.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.