Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page

  • This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
  • Creator
    Topic
  • #71317
    The Hood
    Flatchatter

      At the last attempted committee meeting of my SP we find allegations that two people hold down a 3rd person while a 4th person knees person 3 in the head while another person chants “take him out, take him out”.
      Everyone one of them a current or former SC member; mostly office bearers if that gets them extra credit.
      There are a couple of provisional AVOs in place and the Court will deal with them in slow course, not due course.

      Welcome to the real world, the world the State cares to deny exists. Cliquey, non compliance cultured, mob rule, no consequence strata living fully endorsed by the State. There is nothing dysfunctional about this SP according to CTTT and NCAT. Such a hopeless analysis, based on delusional biases, given the opportunities both have had over the last 10 years to address the culture in this SP.

      This SP is a showcase for how not to run a SP and it is dominated by a clique that will ostracize, silence, character assassinate and exclude in response to any descent and it will even (allegedly) get violent if necessary.

      I am not writing this if the system worked.
      Nothing in the foreseeable future is going to make the system work because it is the system that keeps offering solutions to the problems the system creates.
      They’re not really solutions, they are more political announcements candy coated in “Parliament speak”.

      Section 238 and rogue committee members being an apex example of useless legislation that makes for a fuzzy warm feeling announcement. I make that comment as my application to remove arguably the most rogue SC members failed recently.
      Issues include such things as:
      – failure to give notice of  items on the agenda of a committee meeting (Sch 2 cl 7)
      – failure to first pass a resolution before sending two notices to comply  (s 146 (3))
      – perceived delegation of function contrary to the Act (ss 11 and 12)
      – disenfranchised the owners (no foundation in the Act)

      Then there was the misleading comments and misrepresentation in minutes when the OC knew better.
      Two of the 3 members sought to be removed in that application allegedly took part in Fight Night.
      Rumor is the SC wants to bring back the 3rd member sought to be removed in that application to help calm the room. It is tragic.

      We likely do not have an allegedly assaulted owner, AVO cases and potential civil suits if the system worked.
      One SC member not involved, but a witness, is claiming to be traumatized.
      Let’s hope they don’t watch TV with all the no win, no fee lawyers looking to drum up business.

      These days I just pay my levies and have a life outside the machinations of the owners who seek control so as to pursue their personal agendas, often for personal gain, but this “main event” is hard to just turn a blind eye to.

      There are some units for sale if you are looking for a more “spicy” strata experience.

    Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #71339
      tina
      Flatchatter

        – failure to first pass a resolution before sending two notices to comply  (s 146 (3))

        This would make the Notice to Comply as useless as a warning letter.  If the recipient of the notice continues to breach a by-law, the owners corporation could not go to NCAT because they did not pass a resolution.

        At one of our NCAT hearings, the Member said there is a high threshhold for appointing a compulsory strata manager.  Perhaps there is also a high threshhold for expelling a strata committee member.

        I am sorry you did not get any satisfaction from your legal proceedings.

        #71361
        The Hood
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          This is section 108(2)
          Any such action may be taken by the owners corporation or owner only if a special resolution has first been passed by the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed.

          It too is a pass a motion first section but as readers of this forum would know the failure to first pass the motion can mean nothing. The temporal component of such sections mean nothing anymore.

          Is there a case where the Tribunal has dismissed a matter because there was no resolution first passed?

          The issue is not whether the NTC is valid the issue was the SC did not follow the Act, a trigger for s 238, and yet the failure meant nothing. Such a failure is not dysfunction; it is just non compliance even though the section triggers on a “failed to comply with this Act”

          Indeed the threshold is set high. It is the same as s 237 and requires serious dysfunction which is far removed from “failed to comply with the Act”.
          Sometimes I wonder if NCAT members can read or if they just make it up as they go to suit themselves.

          Some recent case law on s 238
          93. In any event, the matters that are to be considered under s 238 of the SSMA are the matters set out in s 238 (2), being:

          Failure to comply with the Act, the Regulations or the By-laws; or

          Failure to exercise due care and skill, or engaging in serious and wilful misconduct.

          94.  Further, even if any of the matters set out in s 238 (2) are established, the applicant must additionally satisfy the Tribunal that the matters are of sufficient magnitude to justify exercising its discretion in favour of removing the strata committee member from office.
          Linney v The Owners – Strata Plan No. 11669 [2021] NSWCATCD 123

          AND

          23. None of the allegations, even if proven, would support a finding that Mr **** has failed to exercise due care and diligence or engaged in serious misconduct whilst holding office.
          Laws v The Owners – Strata Plan 97230 [2022] NSWCATCD 131

          “Sufficient magnitude” and  “serious misconduct”.
          As far as I recall the section was introduced to deal with people who can’t follow the Act.

          #71366
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            Is there a case where the Tribunal has dismissed a matter because there was no resolution first passed?

            I seem to recall a couple.  I also recall a case where tenants successfully defended failure to comply with a Notice To Comply on the grounds that they were not aware that there was a by-law that they were breaching, even though the by-law was detailed on the NTC, as the Tribunal requires.

            As you say, it’s all down to the whims and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Tribunal Member.

            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.
            #71367
            Jimmy-T
            Keymaster

              Perhaps there is also a high threshhold for expelling a strata committee member.

              When the changes to strata laws currently chugging through the NSW Parliament are enacted, a simple majority of owners at a general meeting can expel members who may not rejoin the committee for another year.  You will also be able to hold another committee election at any general meeting, not just the AGM.

              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.
              #71376
              The Hood
              Flatchatter
              Chat-starter

                When the changes to strata laws currently chugging through the NSW Parliament are enacted, a simple majority of owners at a general meeting can expel members who may not rejoin the committee for another year.

                Indeed. I was a part of the chorus seeking that reform. It seems a more proportional arrangement.
                Such a provision sets up an interesting situation.
                Say an OC declines to pass the motion to dismiss a rogue.
                Then a person entitled to bring an application may have a better time of it arguing it was an unreasonable decision of the OC rather than the pole vaulting high bar that is s 238.
                Something to think about.

                Still, that reform does not help when the rogues have the numbers.
                While i am on proportionality – consider that a surplus in budgets is created by an ordinary resolution but it requires a unanimous resolution to distribute it back to the owner.
                I think like for like is fair enough.

              Viewing 5 replies - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
              • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

              Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page