Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
This is very common practice with most strata management companies who charge low Schedule A (Standard Fees) and encourage their managers to bill for every small item of work carried out on top.
I have suggested this on numerous posts but: choose a manager who has one up front fee or at the very least will cap the Sch B’s & disbursements.
Having said that, the traditional reason for SM’s charging hourly rates is for attendance at after hours meetings or tribunals etc. Any additional work carried out that is not covered by your standard fees will take time out of your SM’s already busy schedule. Is it not reasonable that they get paid a % of Sch B’s then to cover their overtime (esp. late night meetings)?
In short the answer is yes, the by-laws should be enforced evenly. The examples you cite though include a wide variety of issues and I would assume different levels of severity so it’s hard to say what issues may be more important than others to the committee.
Also, can you be sure that the other 7 residents have not received breach letters as well?
They probably charged the printing costs to print the report as a disbursement also. All of this would likely have been noted as additional fees and charges in your agency agreement despite them maybe not charging for the services previously.
Having said that Strata Managers are in the industry to make money and this is one of the ways they do so i.e. Win your business with lower standard fees and hit you with additional monthly charges which you have no comeback for.
Owners Corporations really need to insist on full transparency and the best way to do this is ask for fixed disbursement fees or one all encompassing management fee and when tendering for management services insist that everyone quotes like for like.
I wonder if the Land & Environment Court might be the place to go since we are talking about a breach of DA?
A stern letter from a lawyer to council pointing out their failure to enforce the zoning & DA condition might also help.
Perhaps you could gather support from a group of owners and share the costs of engaging a lawyer?
non-owners with a financial interest in a scheme, including managing agents, letting agents and building managers, will not be able to become committee members. – See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/another-day-in-paradise/new-strata-laws-a-preview/#p10338
This quote is from Jimmy’s summary of legislation changes.
It sounds to me that this will not stop caretakers/building managers who are owners being on the committee so in John T’s situation you would not be disadvantaged. I would add that a good building manager should not need to be on the EC to give good advice. In fact you should expect them to attend your meetings regardless to assist you in making good decisions.
The other important changes mooted also means that if an owner caretaker is on the committee they must remove themselves from voting on motions that would give them a financial benefit.
A win win in my book.
@Mystified said:
Does the Secretary have the power and authority to instruct the SM to accept the quote? Is the SM obliged under SSMA to act upon the instruction?The Strata Managing Agency Agreement will determine who the SM is obliged to take instructions from. This will usually be the chairperson and/or secretary.
Boxer Jones said
It was suggested to me recently that these ‘compulsory’ OH&S checks were another lurk so Strata Managers can glean backhanders from companies conducting the checks and from the contractors employed to fix things up so they are in compliance. Got me thinking.
It is illegal for SM’s to “glean backhanders”. All commissions etc must be disclosed on the agency agreement.
@Whale said:
Cappy – unit entitlements cannot be used to detetmine a quorum,Actually, Schedule 2, clause 12(2) says;
(2) There is a quorum for considering and voting on such a motion or at such an election only if:
(a) at least one-quarter of the number of persons entitled to vote on the motion or at the election is present, either personally or by duly appointed proxy, or
(b) at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlement of the strata scheme is represented by the persons who are present and entitled to vote on the motion or at the election, either personally or by duly appointed proxy.
So you can determine a quorum by either the number of persons present OR by unit of entitlements present.
A special resolution MUST be determined by counting UE’s.
Hi Kimb
What reason did your strata manager give to justify the claim that the lot owner is responsible?
The only answers could be;
- The stairs form part of the lot owners property as noted on the registered strata plan, or
- There is a by-law registered that states that the lot owner is responsible for the maintenance of the stairs.
Totally agree that an EC can effectively carry out an audit & rectify issues but this doesn’t work in the multitudes of OC’s without an active committee and a propensity for ignoring basic maintenance so as to keep levies down.
I think that most SM’s will not really mind whether a consultant or an EC carries out a WH&S audit as long as they have been instructed against obtaining a report and thus are absolved of liability.
The argument regarding what is and isn’t considered non-residential will really only be confirmed by case law and I for one would not like my OC to be the defendant.
Do you have an issue with driving safely to protect other residents?
As usual this issue is not so black and white.
Scotty is right in saying that an owners corporation is exempt from the WH&S Act 2011 if the building is used for residential purposes only BUT what if one or more residents work from home? Surely this exemption is then not applicable.
A WH&S report can be obtain fairly cheaply (less than $400 for a 20 lot scheme) and absolves the committee of any risks associated with doing nothing.
Regardless of legislation and exemptions etc. it is good practice to have a professional report done every few years or when there has been any changes to common Property areas.
Suggest to the EC that the OC should consider carpeting the foyer?
This would be very helpful JT but its not just about the floor slab.
- carpet gets ripped up and replaced with floor boards with high quality acoustic underlay.
- resident then turns on TV at same volume as always
- the echo chamber caused by the renovations and lack of soft furnishings (love the clean modern look) drives the next door neighbour mental.
- next door neighbour resorts to ranting on flat-chat blog
Any acoustic standards or ratings such as suggested must also consider wall thickness, materials and insulation as well as the floor slab.
It is not uncommon for owners to disagree about what allocation of UE’s would be equitable. After all for every winner there are usually many more losers who end up paying a greater percentage of levies.
This is why s.183(8)a) allows an individual owner to make an application to change the UE’s. You can be assured that an ageived owner will only pay for the expenses to go through the process if they are sure that the UE’s really are significantly unfair.
Aquarian – I suggest that you SM engaged a valuer who had no idea of the process for changing UE’s or your SM did not explain the purpose of the valuation (or the OC agreed on a cheap quote from someone not experienced in these matters). An application will get nowhere unless the valuation is specifically fit for purpose. Whether it is an OC making the application or an individual the key is to use a valuer who is experienced in these matters. In my experience both Value 8 & Building Insurance Valuations are very knowledgable in UE disputes. I am sure there are others equally good.
As for the independence of a valuer surely the only way someone will be independent is if they were appointed by a court or adjudicator? (IMO)