Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The by-law should be an exclusive use by-law whereby the 9 lots have exclusive use of the common property water meter. The by-law can then set out how the costs are distributed between the 9 owners which should be up for negotiation between the users but does not necessarily have to be in line with unit of entitlements. The by-law should also stipulate how those costs should be recovered.
The owners corporation can not raise any levies, special or otherwise, as all levies must be distributed to all owners according to the unit of entitlements registered on the strata plan.
Further to Whale’s post, there is also a school of thought that installations such as these would be covered by the model by-law 5 whereby an owner can drive nails or hooks etc into the inside of common property walls (for instance) for the purpose of installing insect screens or in this case a child safety device. Of course this would need to be in keeping with the look of the building but a dark coloured netting can appear to be almost invisible from the outside so may not detract from the look of the building.
The changes to the regulations noted by Whale relate to new guidelines for window openings so I would not consider this relevant in this case.
@scotlandx said:
The Act says that if the scheme has a noticeboard, then notice of an EC meeting must be placed there 72 hours before the meeting. In that case there is no requirement to send the notice to owners individually. The same goes for the minutes – they can just be put on the noticeboard.Unless of course the strata scheme has 100+ lots then the notice and minutes must be posted to all owners but this can be by email for those owners who have given the owners corporation their email address for that purpose.
For service of notices sent by mail you must allow 4 business days postage. You can however hand deliver the notice thus negating the need for the postage delay.
Also, strictly speaking, the notice board clause only applies if the owners corporation is required by the by-laws to maintain a notice board. This standard by-law dropped off of the regulations model by-laws back around 2000 (I think).
So… your strata manager is quite possibly correct.
Schedule 3
Part 2 Provisions relating to meetings of executive committee
6 Notice of executive committee meetings
(1) An executive committee of a large strata scheme must give notice of its intention to hold a meeting at least 72 hours before the time fixed for the meeting:
(a) by giving written notice (which may be done by electronic means) to each owner and executive committee member, and
(b) if the owners corporation is required by the by-laws to maintain a notice board, by displaying the notice on the notice board.
(2) An executive committee of a strata scheme that is not a large strata scheme must give notice of its intention to hold a meeting at least 72 hours before the time fixed for the meeting:
(a) by displaying the notice on the notice board, or
(b) if the owners corporation is not required by the by-laws to maintain a notice board, by giving written notice (which may be done by electronic means) to each owner and executive committee member.
(3) The notice must specify when and where the meeting is to be held and contain a detailed agenda for the meeting.
(4) A notice may be given to a person by electronic means only if the person has given the owners corporation an e-mail address for the service of notices under this Act and the notice is sent to that address.If you have no luck with the notice board then google the street address. You should find a recent lease or sales listing for one of the units in the block. Ring the real estate agents and they will have the name of the strata managers on their records.
Ah yes Lia these are all pertinent questions. Questions which we would expect a professional and experienced insurance broker to be easily able to answer.
Yes there are different policy limits and excesses but apart from this there is very little difference between the major residential strata insurance policies (except possibly where damage is caused to a floating timber floor that is not attached to common property).
This would clearly be changing common property so would require a special resolution to amend. A written request from the executive committee is inadequate and the SM should be advising the EC of the unlawful nature of their request.
Also, how can an EC request something without conducting a meeting? Without this the request is just from one member…
If the proxies exist, for them to be valid they would need to be signed by the persons giving their proxy but not necessarily the proxy holder. Plenty of owners commonly just give their proxy to the “chairperson of the meeting” so the proxy holder may not necessarily be aware of this ahead of time. The proxies should however be disclosed at the opening of the meeting so it is clear of voting rights and quorum calculations.
For the proxies to cast a vote on the appointment of the strata managing agent these voting instructions must be clearly indicated on the proxy form. If they were not, then not enough owners were voting on this motion for a quorum so the decision should be invalid.
At the meeting, two persons must have been nominated to sign the agency agreement and this must have been executed and a copy given to the secretary (or other nominated owner) within 48 hours of the execution. If this was all done, you may need to look at the terms of the contract regarding termination, specifically with respect of negligence.
A strata search should answer most of these questions in the first instance.
@Davtech said:
Our strata manager has said that they are not responsible to fix the water damage.. either the paint, or the timber flooring, and have suggested i claim this on my contents insurance. Is this correct?.Strata has repaired the leaking pipe, which was done from my neighbours side, but nothing has been done to my side.
I installed the the timber floor, its solid boards, secret nailed to a plywood substrate, which is in turn fixed to the concrete slab.Paint surfaces are considered within your lot space and are not covered by the owners corporation or their insurers.
As for the timber floor you should have had a special resolution passed at a general meeting allowing you to affix the flooring to common property and an exclusive use by-law registered transferring the obligation of maintenance to you. If this has not occurred then the floor should be reinstated to its original condition at your cost. If this has occurred the maintenance of the floor will be your responsibility, not the owners corporations.
Whether or not the strata insurers will reimburse your costs (less the excess) will depend on who the policy is with and if timber flooring is included (some do, some don’t).
the other important point is that a caretaker/building manager can only be appointed by the owners corporation at a general meeting.
@Gregc59 said:
That at least will force the issue as everyone would have to park on the road — though my thinking is most will just ignore the ruling — if they do what action can we take? What sort of fines will be enforced.An adjudicator can order someone to abide by the by laws and impose a fine of up to $550. If they then ignore the order you can apply to the adjudicator again who can issue a fine of up to $5500 for breach of an adjudicators order.
THAT will get people to think twice about parking on common property.
Hi Tony
Compliance with architectural standards will nay get you so far i.e. the proposed shutters will be in keeping with look of the building. However, the issue is that, given the shutters must be attached to common property, you will require a by-law to be approved by special resolution at a general meeting giving you the privilege of use of this part of common property.
Section 52 of the SSMA states the following;
52 How does an owners corporation make, amend or repeal by-laws conferring certain rights or privileges?
(1) An owners corporation may make, amend or repeal a by-law to which this Division applies, but only:
(a) with the written consent of the owner or owners of the lot or lots concerned and, in the case of a strata leasehold scheme, the lessor of the scheme, and
(b) in accordance with a special resolution.
Part (a) above is the crux of the matter. The by law can be challenged (even if specially resolved and registered) if any affected owners do not give their written consent. An adjudicator is likely to deem that the neighbour is definitely a “concerned lot” given their view will be partially obscured as a result.
Further to my last post, the strata manager asking for proxies to be given to her is counter productive for her purposes as she will not be able to use these to vote on the motion regarding her appointment.
SSMA – Schedule 2 Clause 11(7A) states;
(7A) Other limits on exercise of proxy
A vote by a proxy who is a caretaker, an on-site residential property manager or a strata managing agent is invalid if it would obtain or assist in obtaining a pecuniary interest for, or confer or assist in conferring any other material benefit on, the proxy.It is not uncommon for a strata management company to be sold or for a portfolio to be sold and transferred to another agency. The terms & conditions of your existing agreement will determine the process for how this should happen.
The standard agreement from Strata Communities Australia has the following relevant clause;
7. Transfer of the agreement
7.1 The agent cannot transfer the agreement without the written consent of the owners corporation, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld if the agent satisfies the owners corporation that the proposed transferee and related persons are fit and proper persons and have the qualifications, competence and experience to perform the agreed services and additional services at an agreed services fee and an additional services fee not greater than the current agreed services fee and additional services fee.
7.2 The owners corporation must advise the agent of its decision whether to approve a proposed transfer within 28 days after receiving from the agent the information reasonably necessary to make the decision.
7.3 If the owners corporation approves the transfer, the owners corporation, the agent and the transferee must enter into a transfer agreement, or alternatively if the agent elects to enter into a new agency agreement then clause 7.5 will apply.
7.4 For the purposes of clause 7.1 to 7.3 (inclusive) the parties agree that “consent of the owners corporation” can be provided by the Executive Committee, unless the Act is amended to expressly provide that approval of the owners corporation for transferring the functions of a strata managing agent requires a resolution at a general meeting of the owners corporation.
7.5 After the transfer agreement has been entered into or, if an election has been made by the agent under clause 7.3 the new agent must request that the owners corporation enter into a new agency agreement, and the owners corporation must advise the new agent of its decision to enter into a new agency agreement within 28 days after such request, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld if the new agency agreement is on the same terms as this agreement, or on terms not less favourable to the owners corporation as this agreement. The new agent must pay the reasonable cost of preparing the new agency agreement, preparing and holding the meetings of the executive committee and the general meeting of the owners corporation, however if the meeting relates to more than approval of the minutes of the last meeting and the resolution relating to the new agency agreement, then the new agent must pay the proportionate share of the total cost relating to approval of the new agency agreement.
So, the executive committee can approve a new agreement in these circumstances without a general meeting being called. HOWEVER, the secretary should not be doing so without the approval (by a resolution of a committee meeting).
Having said that, there seems to be a number of other issues with the way this matter has been dealt with which points to Jimmy’s summary of the strata managers competence being correct.
I agree with K-roo here.
There is nothing fairer than common property repairs being paid for by the owners corporation.
Other issues that come to mind if the works are carried out individually by owners;
- it will likely be less cost effective (per window) to have them done piecemeal rather than all at once.
- if owners engaged their own tradesmen individually the likelihood of having a uniform appearance across the building will be low.
scotlandx said
Yes I think you can, and I don’t believe you need a by-law. A scheme where a friend of mine lives did a similar thing when they had to replace their ceilings.
What you need to do is get all the owners to agree to pay the cost of the relevant window replacement for their lot, but on the basis that the windows remain common property (which is what I would assume you want).
You would do that by entering into an agreement signed by all the owners, expressed as binding the owners and any successors in title. In essence what you are doing is agreeing to a variation of the usual section 62 obligation, on a one-off basis. I think that the agreement would have to be executed as a deed. You would be best to get a lawyer to draft it, because this is not legal advice.
This sounds to me a lot like a by-law? If everyone agrees and you want it binding moving forward, then why not just pass a by-law?