deliria1

There has been a further development to this.

After the Strata Manager (chairperson}  was challenged about the validity of the two co-owners self nominating on the night of the AGM,  a few days later he produced  two copies (one for each of these owners) of the ‘2019 pre AGM survey’ that was sent to all owners asking various questions such as ‘would you attend meetings via video conferencing’ and ‘would you like the OC to bulk tender services’ etc. Amongst all these survey questions was a question-

‘Would you like to nominate yourself or another person for election to the Strata Committee for your lot at the next A.G.M.?(Please circle YES or NO). Note: Only 1 owner may be nominated for each lot. If YES, the name of the nominee;’

The survey form had no place to write the name of the nominator nor did it require a signature.

I will add that on the night of the AGM he said that he had received no pre-AGM nominations. One woman (nomination not in doubt) corrected him and said she had sent through her nomination with her survey, but no-one else said they had.

I believe these randomly produced surveys, which took a few days to ‘find’ don’t provide any more clarity around who did the nomination as they are not dated nor signed by anyone so could still be a self nomination. They also could have been sent through after the AGM for all we know.

The secretary of the SC seems to be happy with chairperson’s explanation saying ‘it is too difficult to pursue and he does not want to rock the boat.’ Personally I don’t think that is an acceptable reason.

Also, the minutes of the meeting indicate that the Owners were asked to vote on the number of SC members and it was decided on 7. We were not asked to vote on a number, the chairperson just asked for nominations and 8 people nominated and were elected. A day after the AGM one newly elected SC member was told her nomination was not valid as she is not an owner and was not nominated by an owner. The minutes do not reflect what happened on the night at all.

What can be done about this mess of an AGM and these dubious SC nominations?

Further to this.

We have now been told by the “valuer” of our complex that an appropriate method is to base Unit Entitlement on “Sales Price.” Which is apparently what he did.

In all my research I have found nothing that states that UoE is based on the “sale price” of “off the plan” units.

I am sure everyone on this forum is aware of how selling ‘off the plan’ works.

Initially the developer may offer apartments at a lower price to attract buyers and therefore secure finance. Once finance is secured and with the advent of time, prices on the remaining apartments rise.

Thanks Whale, sage advice indeed!

I spoke to the Strata Manager and while I am not sure if an SBL was registered pertaining to these screens – the minutes of the AGM indicate that the metal screen installed by some residents set the precedent & all requests for privacy screens must follow this design.

as mentioned below we would like to install metal privacy screens (at our cost & exempting the OC of all responsibility) to our front terrace, raising the height to about 1.8m. We have employed a landscape design company to up with a design. The design they have come up with exists elsewhere in the development so suits the aesthetic perfectly. 

The developer, who is an EC member, does not want to allow this claiming we want to change the architectural fabric of the building, as I pointed out to him, the metal screen design exists elsewhere in the development, so we are not changing the architectural fabric, we are actually referencing it.

stupidly our EC is made up of more investors than owner/occupiers and the other investors tend to follow his lead, thinking that as ‘the developer’ he knows what is best for the building.

The developer has now agreed to a request for a large awning from another ground floor apartment, this awning will be bolted onto the common wall of the terrace, will be 3.5m wide and 3m long – yet somehow this awning does not change the architectural fabric of the building.

Prior to settlement, we had a long legal battle with this developer over a contract issue, much to his dismay, he was forced to honour the contract, which ended up costing him a fair bit of money. I believe his refusal to even consider the privacy screens comes from his contempt towards me. he can barely be civil towards me. he is rude and abrupt in person & via email. 

If I feel his constant refusal to even consider anything I put forward to the EC is personal, is there an avenue where I can pursue this?

Thanks

Thanks.

Indeed the developer has said 72 square metres internally & 17 metres externally – 89 square metres all up.

The strata plan says the lot is 91 square metres for apartment & courtyard & 105 square metres including parking.

Measuring room by room, wall to wall I only get a total of 63 square metres – but if they don’t usually count the walls, then I guess it makes sense.

So does that mean if an apartment is advertised as 60 sqm internally, it most likely only has around 52 square metres of actual usable floor space?