Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #11412
    hammer66
    Flatchatter

      At the end of our AGM nominations were requested for the strata cttee. Amazingly, 10 people volunteered. After a vote it was decided that only 5 owners could serve on the cttee.

      A popularity contest then followed with each owner given a voting slip with 5 names to be written down. All the nominees were in attendance except one. This person was on the previous cttee but hardly ever attended any meetings.

      He nominated himself and this decision was conveyed by the chairman. When it came to the vote to choose the five Cttee members, the chairman wrote down 5 choices on behalf of the missing nominee.

      Consequently, and to the amazement of the 5 disappointed nominees, the missing candidate was voted back onto the ctte. It seemed like an attempt to keep some active owner occupiers off of the cttee, which is now 4:1 in favour of investors.

      Can the chair act in this way and effectively, decide on behalf of the absent nominee where to direct the rest of his votes?

      Thanks in anticipation

    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #28461
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        The Chairman should only have included the votes of the absent member if he had a valid proxy form from the absent member. 

        There are other issues that might be in play, such as co-owners can’t self-nominate and candidates can’t be nominated by people who are standing for election themselves.

        However, even if you find enough flaws in the voting process to have the election overturned, the investor group might get their act together the next time round.

        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.
        #28468
        hammer66
        Flatchatter
        Chat-starter

          Thanks for the quick response. The chair did have a proxy for the absent nominee. However, other attendees holding proxies were not given the opportunity to vote. Should they have been?

          With regards to nominations, interested parties nominated themselves, then it was decided on the number of the Cttee, then we all chose our preferred 5 candidates. As I said, only the chair was able to use proxy.

          Shame as we had some young enthusiastic people who missed out. 

          #28470
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            @hammer66 said:
            The chair did have a proxy for the absent nominee. However, other attendees holding proxies were not given the opportunity to vote. Should they have been?
              

            Absolutely – and now you need to move fairly quickly. 

            If they were denied the opportunity to vote their proxies and those proxies would have made a difference, then you can have the election nullified under Section 24 of the Act (below).

            The reason I say you need to move quickly is that Section 25 of the Act deals with denial of the right to vote and it puts a 28 day limit on the claim. 

            A smart lawyer would say that this is a Section 25 matter and therefore a time limit is valid.  The easiest way to get round that is to make your claim ASAP.

            If what you say is correct, your owners have been duped by the chairman who accepted his own proxies and no one else’s. 

            That’s a clear case of denial of the right to vote – even if it was just by rushing the process – and the election should be overturned and run again.

            It’s also a clear motivation for getting rid of your chairman at the first opportunity.

            24   Order invalidating resolution of owners corporation

            (1)  The Tribunal may, on application by an owner or first mortgagee of a lot in a strata scheme, make an order invalidating any resolution of, or election held by, the persons present at a meeting of the owners corporation if the Tribunal considers that the provisions of this Act or the regulations have not been complied with in relation to the meeting.

            (3)  The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under this section only if it considers:

            (a)  that the failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the regulations, or of the Strata Schemes Development Act 2015, did not adversely affect any person, and

            (b)  that compliance with the provisions would not have resulted in a failure to pass the resolution or affected the result of the election.

            [NB: Section 2 relates directly to Strata Renewal and is not relevant in this issue]
            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.
            #28472
            hammer66
            Flatchatter
            Chat-starter

              Thanks very much, I will take this information to the other nominees and hopefully get the vote overturned.

            Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
            • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

            Flat Chat Strata Forum Strata Committees Current Page