imported_dech

Recent confirmation from Fair Trading in NSW is that in a life and death emergency involving faulty common property the SC needs to give three days notice with the agenda prior to making any decision – unless the OC has somehow introduced a resolution/rule/by-law (not sure what) that allows for exceptions.  We have had four SM’s and none have mentioned this but it’s basic good business practice to have defined how an emergency is declared/ by whom / funds approval escalations etc.  I have a similar query to yours but one thing is clear the OC would have to have formally voted to allow an SC member to appropriate funds without agenda/minutes.

    Depending on the number of units, Strata committee (SC)  agenda and minutes may only have to be  placed on a notice board if this has been voted for at some point – even if most owners are investors who rarely if ever pass the board.

    In NSW and presumably all jurisdictions  the SC does and can not make decisions to alter common property (CP) which a change of colours certainly is.  Thus any work paid for by the OC which involves alteration of CP has by definition involved misappropriation of funds and legal action could be taken by the OC against whoever authorized payment.  Happily for most SC members this is likely to be one individual who falsely advised the Strata Mgr. (SM) that the OC had approved the payment. 

   I don’t know if its available but my first recommendation for any OC hiring a Strata Mgr. would be to have a clause in the contract that it is the SM’s responsibility to sight and record evidence that any decisions involving SM action were decided at a properly convened meeting of the relevant body; otherwise my guess is that SM’s defence would be that when a decision is presented by the Secretary it is presumed that somewhere/sometime a proper  meeting was held. 

    Based on recent experience if some channels work then the amplifier would be chief suspect.  If someone has been in the cavity recently then more so as unplugging it while in a tight/dark place may be easily done.  

  Presumably no one involved with the exception of at least someone associated with the Strata Mgr’s. has any understanding of Strata law so you may be able to buy time i.e. if the EGM doesn’t get a quorum or more likely they fail to make the item a Special Resolution thus rendering any vote invalid.  Your view of whether replacing a grassed area with concrete (probably soon to have oil stains) enhances the block is worth whatever your unit entitlements add up to but legally those approving of concrete require 75% agreement of those who attend (including proxies) a properly convened meeting.

   It would appear from what you have stated that there are grounds for the Owners Corp. to explore litigation against whoever authorized the destruction of common property thus far which presumably also included mis-appropriation of money i.e. legal appropriation=approval by special resolution anything else=mis-appropriation.

  You might also politely ask the Strata Mgr. whether anything in the contract states or implies that they provide advice as to the legality of any action prior to it’s commencement.  Or maybe you can leverage some of all this to get the OC to pay for screening. 

   One would hope that it is “normal strata procedure”; particularly in the case of those who demonstrate gross disregard or pig ignorance of the affect of their actions on other occupiers.  In fact it would be much better if they used terms such as “we’ve become aware” or if they have clear evidence “a recent inspection has revealed”.  This would provide protection in cases where it may be obvious to perpetrators that there is only one individual in the block with the sensitivity and wherewithal to contact the Strata Mgr.

    There appear to be many blocks where occupiers in locations where there is a very understandable desire for further privacy put up flimsy “brush” style barriers which are soon blow into various angles; add some washing and a bit of “junk” storage and even a new block gradually takes on an (expensive) slum like appearance.  

   You seem to have the good fortune to have someone who cares either about the aesthetics or perhaps has no objection to your efforts but want’s to maintain a rules based system rather than anarchy.  Or more likely someone who generally cares about neither but have a vague idea that anything out of the ordinary will negatively affect their property values.

   Why not try the system out an put in an agenda item to modify you balcony; perhaps including a few options and the usual acceptance that it will be done in a workmanlike manner; you will pay for any maintenance etc.  Failing that; I’ve never heard of any rule about what you can have on the balcony apart from washing; there are planter boxes which sit on the top rail and ferns etc. would rise 60cm or so above that – although again the legal terminology “not in keeping with the appearance of…” could mean anything on a balcony.

    Around 18 years ago I supplied the glossy “Strata Living” booklet from the NSW govt.  to my then fellow E.C. members.  From memory it made either no mention or a vague reference of when a Special resolution is required or that the EC needed to have an agenda and minutes for all decisions.  They may well have made the effort to leaf through it and the remaining member subsequently thinks that it’s open slather apart from some rules on AGM’s, insurance etc.  The Strata Mgr. appears to have a similar level of knowledge (or a business model which says: Don’t bother or confuse committee members with all that stuff for the “grownups”; keep it simple; one or two individuals take power and do what they see fit and keep paying our fees).

   A requirement that Strata committee members sign a document stating that they have read and understand say a two A4 page guide in 14pt font, perhaps with a few points in bold would be a useful start.

    This particular case is probably all over but why would anyone think that a floor covering (parquetry) has anything to do with common property (my understanding being that parquetry is adhered to the floor) – even if the damage was caused by a failing in the common property.  It seems to be established that where a water leak from common property pipes causing paint damage to the ceiling below the paint damage is not covered by the OC. 

    In the case above it appears to have been established that the damage was not caused by any common prop. failure and that the parquetry was adhered to something i.e. the actual common property floor and thus should have the same status as originally laid carpet or original paint on walls.

I recall at some meeting it was agreed at our block that EC meeting agendas would only go on the Notice Board.  No notice board has ever been approved but one is present.  Essentially no owner is likely to ever see any agenda or minutes but apart from the technicality of of us not legally having a board I understand that this is legal – the owners apart from myself and those on the now SC have no interest or probably comprehension of what the SC does.