Strata manager getting it wrong

› Flat Chat Strata Forum › The Professionals › Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • 10/01/2023 at 11:40 pm #67015
    gazelle
    Flatchatter

      I was at an EGM tonight where the strata manager said the following about some of the motions that were raised.

      1  He didn’t see a problem with co-owners self-nominating for the committee. He said that was open to interpretation. I think that he might have been confusing it with co-owner voting rights. I showed him Section 31 (1)(c) of the SSMA but he wasn’t convinced.

      2.  He didn’t see a problem with the strata committee painting the building with a different colour scheme, without consulting the owners corporation. He said that they were entitled to do that under Section 106 of the SSMA 2015.

      3.  He also said that home building compensation (HBC) cover was optional for works over $20K and didn’t see a problem with the strata committee accepting the quote for a job over $20K without a signed contract or HBC cover in place. A quote that he sent out in the SCM notice.

      This is from a strata professional who used to work in the building trade. I’m not a builder/tradesperson and I’m not a strata manager but even I know that’s not right.

      I shake my head. Is it unreasonable of me to expect something better than that from a strata professional?

      I’ll be calling the Director/Senior Strata Manager of our strata management company tomorrow to see if he’s of the same opinion.

    • Creator
      Topic
    Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • 11/01/2023 at 1:30 pm #67043
      spmanager
      Flatchatter

        Hi Gazelle sounds like the meeting was fun.

        1. The manager is probably being practical (depending on the history of the building). All they had to do was ask does anyone want to nominate the co-owner. Lots of Stratas’ do that. Unless there is an issue with the person going on the committee, these one’s are usually let through so meeting don’t take hours.
        2. While the committee can do it. it could be an issue with owners. Remember all committee meeting agendas and minutes go out to owners and 25% of owners can block the committee from resolving any issue.
        3. This one is a problem. you need contracts and the Design Building and Practitioners Act is also involved for works over $5000.00, so the manager is wrong and really needs to be carefull.
        11/01/2023 at 1:33 pm #67047
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster
          spmanager wrote:

          Remember … 25% of owners can block the committee from resolving any issue.

          Good point but has anybody ever heard of this happening … apart from in this case?

           

          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.
          11/01/2023 at 4:59 pm #67048
          gazelle
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter
            spmanager wrote:

            Hi Gazelle sounds like the meeting was fun.

            The manager is probably being practical (depending on the history of the building). All they had to do was ask does anyone want to nominate the co-owner. Lots of Stratas’ do that. Unless there is an issue with the person going on the committee, these one’s are usually let through so meeting don’t take hours.

            I understand your point and normally I wouldn’t be so pedantic. But in this case, the committee wasn’t functioning well and one committee officer was causing most of the problems. I put forward a motion to vacate his office but because it requires a special resolution, I knew that I wouldn’t have the numbers because the other 2 committee members would back him up.

            That’s why I challenged the co-owner nominations. Because that’s the only way that I was going to get rid of them and force a new election. It might be pedantic but it’s the law.

            To your point about the strata manager asking somebody else to nominate the co-owner. That’s true. But that then has an impact because if a different owner nominates the co-owner, that owner can’t nominate themselves or someone else (is that the case?). Which in turn has an impact on the available nominations.

            While the committee can do it. it could be an issue with owners. Remember all committee meeting agendas and minutes go out to owners and 25% of owners can block the committee from resolving any issue.

            I agree with you. But in this case, the strata manager didn’t send the SCM meeting notice to the owners corporation. Another stuff up by the strata manager. They held the SCM one day and the painting started the very next day, without any notice to the owners or tenants.

            I used the 25% rule to make a “qualified request” for an EGM, but by the time the notice period passed, the damage had already been done. Now we’re stuck with a dodgy paint job and the owners don’t like the new colour scheme.

             

            • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by . Reason: The formatting was wrong at the end. My response was quoted so you couldn't see the statement and response
            11/01/2023 at 11:55 pm #67056
            gazelle
            Flatchatter
            Chat-starter
              gazelle wrote:

              I’ll be calling the Director/Senior Strata Manager of our strata management company tomorrow to see if he’s of the same opinion.

              Just to close this off. I spoke to the Director of my strata management company today, who is also a senior strata manager, and asked him if he agreed with the comments made by our/his strata manager in our recent EGM.

              He agreed that HBC cover is required for any building/trades work above $20K, including painting. I already knew that care of these two links:

              https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/trades-and-businesses/licensing-and-qualifications/painting

              Find a Painter or Consultant

              But on my other two questions (co-owner self-nomination for strata committee & Section 108 applicable for changing building colour scheme), he also stated that they were open to interpretation. He said that he’d spoken to solicitors about this in the past and that it’s a grey area. I told him that he should find some better lawyers.

              Specifically on the co-owner self-nomination, he stated that the term “co-owner” isn’t even defined in the strata legislation and that there could be differences in the interpretation between joint owners and tenants in common, etc.

              Now I’m no legal eagle, but my simplistic view is that if there is more than one name on the title, you’re co-owners, as opposed to a single owner.

              I did some searching and sure enough, “co-owner” doesn’t appear to be defined in the strata legislation but it is defined here:

              CONVEYANCING ACT 1919 – SECT 66F

              66F Definitions
              In this Division–

              (1) “Co-ownership” means ownership whether at law or in equity in possession by two or more persons as joint tenants or as tenants in common; and
              “co-owner” has a corresponding meaning and includes an incumbrancer of the interest of a joint tenant or tenant in common.

              I presume that’s the relevant definition but happy to be educated if it’s not.

               

              12/01/2023 at 10:01 pm #67062
              TrulEConcerned
              Flatchatter

                Hi Gaelle,

                As to the matter of “co-owner” or “joint owner” i.e more than one person owning a lot….my experience may assist you.

                1. At several times owners and/or a co-owner self nominated for election. Even in the most appallingly run scheme I am involved in, this was never a barrier to being a candidate for election. Sure at times some folks objected that the self nominees were not nominated in their words “according to law”, but even then the chair said “ok, then I nominate Mr So N. So. Now can we vote”? (Frankly I had no issue with self nominations); and
                2. The most cunning executive of a committee (of 7) – in a strata with 7 lots, one member per lot – one time pulled a fast one at an annual general meeting. She suggested one lot with 2 owners each be nominated and run for election (so that lot would have 2 members on the committee) and that the person with the least amount of votes amongst the other 6 lots would be tossed off the committee to make room for the joint owners. Given the numbers, the SC was a de facto OC, I smelled a rat and while I did not know what legal grounds I had, I made clear that if this vote passes I will do my best to see the matter run on A Current Affair or similar, where the committee members will be contacted by the program for comment. I will see that a chair is available at the interview and if they don’t show up, the chair (with their names) will be empty. Not only did the committee Secretary not proceed with a vote, he rewrote history by withdrawing the motion from the agenda (something I doubt is legal once an agenda is distributed and the motion about to be voted on). Naturally I did not pursue the matter at meetings or at NSW FT and it was never repeated by the committee.

                 

                12/01/2023 at 10:23 pm #67065
                Jimmy-T
                Keymaster
                  TrulEConcerned wrote:

                  … She suggested one lot with 2 owners each be nominated and run for election (so that lot would have 2 members on the committee) …

                  This may not have been the case when this attempt at committee stacking occurred, but Section 31 of the Act currently says:

                  (4) Only one co-owner (including a company nominee of a co-owner) of the same lot may be a member of a strata committee at the same time, except as provided by subsection (5).

                  (5)  A person who is an owner of more than one lot in the strata scheme may nominate one person for election as a member of the strata committee for each lot for which the person is an owner.

                  TrulEConcerned wrote:

                  [The committee secretary] rewrote history by withdrawing the motion from the agenda (something I doubt is legal once an agenda is distributed and the motion about to be voted on).

                  For the record, this was perfectly legal and probably not as unusual as you might think. Section 15 of Schedule 2 of the Act says: “The chairperson at a meeting may rule a motion out of order if the chairperson considers that the motion, if carried, would conflict with this Act or the by-laws of the strata scheme or would otherwise be unlawful or unenforceable.”

                  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.
                  • This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by .
                • Author
                  Replies
                Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                › Flat Chat Strata Forum › The Professionals › Current Page