Forums From the Front Page Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #66678 Reply | Quote
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      An increasingly attractive suggested method for dealing with… let’s call them “persistently critical” owners in a strata scheme has been to try to pas
      [See the full post at: Small victory for litigious Victoria strata warrior]

      If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. 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. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
    Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #66688 Reply
      pukoh
      Flatchatter

        In this instance, shouldn’t the strata manager know what needs to be done to make the passing of costs directly to Mr Rogers ‘legal’.

        Should they not be held accountable?

        #66691 Reply
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster
        Chat-starter

          shouldn’t the strata manager know what needs to be done to make the passing of costs directly to Mr Rogers ‘legal’.

          Absolutely.  But it seems four law firms didn’t know, so the strata manager wasn’t alone. Although, to be fair, there were plenty of other reasons the law firms might have declined the gig.

          If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. 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. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
          #66696 Reply
          Austman
          Flatchatter

            The practice of on-passing certain Strata Manager fees to lot owners has been done in VIC stratas for decades.

            Eg the fee charged to the OC by an SM for issuing a breach notice has been on-passed to the lot that received the breach notice.   It gets placed against the lot’s account.  So it becomes type of pseudo fine against the lot.    But it’s never been allowed to be done that way, so it’s always been done as a gambit:  the lot owner has to either pay the fee or challenge it.   Most pay.

            The practice can even get approved by the OC at each AGM.  I know some of my OCs do that.   To some extent that gives the SM the green light to do it.   But, as several VCAT cases have  established, OC approval of the practice does not make it legal.

            To make it legal before charging a lot owner, an OC had to first apply to VCAT for approval.   VCAT more recently has more authority to grant that approval if it sees fit to do so.

            Applying to VCAT is a process within itself, so many (most I’d say) OCs try the gambit method first.   If a lot owner challenges the fees at VCAT, they might win or they might lose.  The lot owners has to decide if it’s worth the challenge.

            In the case in this thread, the OC withdrew the fees before the case was heard at VCAT.  So we’ll never know if VCAT might have allowed some or part of them.   But the OC involved for sure did not follow the correct process it needed to follow when it issued the fees.

             

             

             

            #66703 Reply
            Jimmy-T
            Keymaster
            Chat-starter

              In the case in this thread, the OC withdrew the fees before the case was heard at VCAT.  So we’ll never know if VCAT might have allowed some or part of them.

              The Member said this:

              “I have found that the disputed fees were not validly levied. In addition, there is no evidence that the Owners Corporation was authorised by special resolution, or ordinary resolution, to collect those disputed fees from Mr [Rodgers], either by debt collectors or subsequent legal proceedings, as required by s 18 of the OC Act.”

              They added:

              “I have found that the tax invoices comprising the disputed fees were not validly levied. However, had the proper process been followed, the Owners Corporation might well have been justified in charging back to Mr [Rodgers] the fees that all the lot owners had incurred as a result of Mr [Rodgers]’ extensive correspondence and requests for information.”

              So now we know.  If proper process had been followed, they could and probably would have allowed the charges.

              FYI: Section 18 says this:

              18 Power to commence legal proceeding

              (1) Subject to subsection (2), an owners corporation must not commence any legal proceeding unless it is authorised by special resolution to do so.

              (2) If a matter is within the civil jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates’ Court and an owners corporation is authorised to do so by ordinary resolution, the owners corporation may commence any legal proceeding in—

              (a) the Magistrates’ Court; or

              (b) VCAT or any other tribunal; or

              (c) a court of another State or a Territory that corresponds to the Magistrates’ Court.

              If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. 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. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
              #66708 Reply
              Austman
              Flatchatter

                So now we know. If proper process had been followed, they could and probably would have allowed the charges.

                Yes, the proper process was not followed.

                But in cases where the proper process was followed, there’s no guarantee that VCAT “probably would have allowed the charges”.   Although VCAT “might well have”.

                The OC still has to justify the charges.  And there have been many cases where VCAT has reduced the OC’s claimed charges or denied them entirely.

                #66714 Reply
                Jimmy-T
                Keymaster
                Chat-starter

                  there’s no guarantee …

                  Hence the words “probably” and “might well have”. To be fair, you didn’t have the benefit of reading the case findings because I chose not to link to it for reasons of privacy.  Our “no names no pack drill” policy is flexible but in this case I decided caution was the better part of valour.

                  However, I think the general tone was leaning towards allowing the charges if they had been properly formulated. The member certainly went to considerable lengths to stress that it was an option open to him, had the correct procedures been followed.

                  there have been many cases where VCAT has reduced the OC’s claimed charges or denied them entirely.

                  Any chance of a citation or link, please?

                  If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. 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. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
                  #66718 Reply
                  Austman
                  Flatchatter

                    To be fair, you didn’t have the benefit of reading the case findings

                    I read it.  VCAT published it, as is their prerogative.

                    Any chance of a citation or link, please?

                    I’ll do that.   I read all VCAT published OC cases and recall a few where OC charges claims against a lot have been reduced or refused by VCAT.   However, recent changes to the OC Act (from December 2021) make it easier for VCAT to approve certain OC charges claims.

                    #66723 Reply
                    Jimmy-T
                    Keymaster
                    Chat-starter

                      I read it.  VCAT published it, as is their prerogative.

                      And you don’t think the member was leaning towards allowing the charges, had they been properly pursued?

                      If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. 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. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
                    Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
                    Reply To: Small victory for litigious Victoria strata warrior
                    PLEASE ... If your property is not in NSW, mention its location (state). Don't identify companies or individuals by name. Don't mention or promote your company or services. Keep acronyms and initials to a minimum. Please, don’t use “quote” unless there is a specific point to which you wish to refer, then highlight (define) that specific passage before you click on "quote". Otherwise just use reply. THANKS.

                    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
                    Your account can't use all available BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

                    Your information:




                    Forums From the Front Page Current Page