Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
Thanks for that advice Jimmy re the more specific motion we should put forward. Unfortunately that may now need to be our second attempt if required as the time required to lodge this motion before the AGM has lapsed.
At this stage, our AGM next month will carry a motion asking the OC to ban fishing from the pool enclosure and, if passed by the required number of votes, be added to our by-laws. A change to By-laws would require the vote to be at least 75%, based on lot entitlements.
We understand that the meeting chairperson has been advised to rule the motion out of order at the meeting.
Our understanding of the Act is that he can do so if the motion, if carried, would conflict with this Act or the by-laws of the strata scheme or would otherwise be unlawful or unenforceable, or, any requirement of this Act to include the form of the motion in the notice of the meeting has not been complied with”. (SSMA, Schedule 1, Section 19).
Our questions are:
- Is the chairman obliged to explain the decision at the meeting?
- What options do we have at the meeting for recording dissent, should the chair rule the motion out of order?
- What options, following the meeting, are open to the OC or individual owners to have that decision reviewed by a higher authority?
- This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by .
Thanks for the responses.
A group of us agreed to present the following motion at the upcoming AGM:
MOTION 3. This meeting agrees that fishing from the pool enclosure at (our strata) be banned and, if agreed, that the decision be given effect in an appropriately worded by-law. To be actioned by our strata manager.
We have received the following ‘input’ from one of the SC ( a fisher):
‘Your idiotic motion on fishing from the pool is not only illegal and has no basis .It is like saying you cannot do backstroke in the pool. There are no by’-laws to cover this and how do you propose to enforce it.<br class=”” />Stop alienating other owners and learn to live and let live. Get a life and stop being so miserable and petty minded.’
Ah…Strata Living….
Thank you Sir Humphrey.
We were advised by the resident that the NDIS do require secure storage for the mobility scooter.
The resident & his wife have a car each so use both spaces.
Your suggestions of considering using concrete mesh and including a condition requiring the owner to restore the space to the original appearance when no longer required are helpful.
10/05/2019 at 7:30 pm in reply to: Unauthorised interference of common property and work of the strata committee #37534The locksmith had already installed the lock at our cost. The resident (part owner) has been asked to restore the lock but has ignored requests to date. He still has the compliant lock in his possession.
Unfortunately this is just one example of interference in strata committee work by this resident. The resident has never attended a strata meeting in the time we have been residents. He operates as if he has full authority to do as he wishes.
Just performing normal maintenance tasks has become an unnecessarily time-consuming operation and this is an almost 50 year old building where many maintenance tasks are well overdue.
Other than asking politely, which has been done by a very patient SC what are the next steps which could be taken?
Thank you scotlandx and Lady Penelope. That was really helpful.
The owner wanting to have the chairlift installed on our common property stairs has not put in a fully scoped proposal at this stage. The SC has sent off a response to the owner based on all the issues you have raised.
While doing our research for enabling disabled access, stair climbing wheel chairs came up. Any experience of these?
-
AuthorReplies