special levy where 3 out of 4 owners benefit

tiny – I don’t entirely agree, primarily because you are the fourth owner whose Lot has the possibly incorrect units of entitlement, and so any resolution such as one for the Owners Corporation not to maintain / replace items of its common property such as the garage doors would fail so long as the other three owners vote as a block.

Secondly, I don’t agree that you shouldn’t be required to contribute (via your levies) to replace an item of the common property just because you don’t personally benefit from that activity, as in addition to the proposed garage door replacement, there would be many other scenarios where you may benefit by such activities and the other owners may not to the same extent if at all.

The replacement of the roof guttering or of a faulty window above/in your Lot are but two examples that come to mind, so in this and that broader context I don’t agree that you can or should be exempted from contributing to the replacement of the garage doors just because your Lot doesn’t have one.

That’s not to say that you shouldn’t adopt Jimmy’s suggestion to seek Orders to have the units of entitlement of your Plan reallocated under Sect 183(2), as it does seem on the basis of the information provided that the original (equal) allocation was in error.

I think that the matter raised in your other post goes more to the core issue here, where the Owners Corporation refuses to set owners’ levy contributions in accordance with the Strata Schemes Management Act so that those are properly reflective of actual and expected expenditures for in the case of the Administrative Fund property insurance and recurrent expenses, and in the case of the Sinking Fund for capital expenses such as renewing / replacing common property items such as those garage doors.

The Special Levy that you mention here has been proposed for the garage doors has to be agreed to by a majority vote at a General Meeting of the Owners Corporation (e.g. and AGM), so that’s really putting the proverbial cart before the horse as that same Meeting MUST include a Motion to set realistic levies for the Administrative and Sinking Funds that must “…. take into account, a statement of the existing financial situation of the strata scheme and an estimate of receipts and payments” (ref: Sect 75) and in the case of the latter, as Jimmy mentioned a 10 year (forward estimates) Plan.

I’m assuming that whilst the replacement of the garage doors may be somebody’s good idea, it’s likely not critical, and so I’d be advising the other owners and your Strata Manager (if you have one) in writing, that the proposed Special Levy won’t be necessary as the proposed expense has, at the next AGM, to be incorporated into the next budget estimate for the Sinking Fund as a planned renewal/replacement of an item of common property, and that whilst they’re at it, that Meeting needs to also prepare a proper budget estimate for the Administrative Fund and that 10 year Sinking Fund Plan so as to ensure that your Plan’s overall deficit of funds can be addressed.

If the other Owners have other ideas, then please come back for more (and possibly heavier) options to address the issues.

Normally I would agree with Whale that everyone should pay their share of levies related to common property expenses, regardless of whether they use them.  However, that assumes that each lot’s Unit Entitlements have been calculated to roughly reflect the value of the lot, including facilities and shared access to usable common property (or not).

In this case, they haven’t.  Everyone pays the same levies, regardless of whether or not they have a garage.  So, while Whale is right to say that everybody should pay their share, the shares have been divided unfairly to begin with and I believe the lot owner is entitled to find a way to even up the burden (as the Act allows).

My suggestion that owners should make a Section 145 application to remove the financial burden of a special levy presumes that at least two of the three other owners agree.  This would be my preferred option as a pragmatic response to this dilemma – the final arbiter on this would be an NCAT adjudicator who would at least be independent.  If not, tiny could go it alone.

Everything Whale wrote about sorting out the sinking fund and other finances first, and the garage doors later, is spot on.  But it sounds like none of the other three are interested in paying more in general levies so it could require a lot of horse-trading to get the scheme’s finances on an even keel.

Peter C’s comments have made me wonder if the garages are part of the lots or allocated common property.  If it is the former, you might have an argument for saying the garage doors are the individual lot owners responsibility (although I’m not sure if that would stand up to a challenge in the Tribunal).