Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
A chain or wire from the handle in the centre of the opening side of the window to the corresponding point on the frame is a suitable and inexpensive alternative to something that blocks the track. In fact, for very narrow sliding aluminium windows such as are often used in bathrooms and laundries it is the preferred option, because very narrow sliding windows can tilt when pushed up against a stopper in the lower rail, creating an opening of much more than allowed 125mm.
Designate those areas where parking isn’t going to be a problem as ‘Resident Parking Only’ areas with a sign or pavement marking. Then tell everyone that they can only park in designated areas, and enforce it.
Sharing the spaces amongst all residents on a first come-first served basis is fair, and will probably mean that the existing arrangement doesn’t change, except that there will be no question about favouritism when it comes to applying the rules.
The problem is in the use of the term ‘invalid’. A by-law that is invalid effectively does not exist. It could be invalid because proper process was not followed – the vote was counted incorrectly, or proper notice of meeting was not given, or something similar.
The only other basis on which Fair Trading could declare the by-law ‘invalid’ would be if there was a reason that it could not be considered in a matter before the tribunal. The tribunal would then be entitled to act as if the by-law did not exist. This can happen if the by-law addresses something that is outside the authority of the Owners Corporation – a by-law that pretends to restrict owners from parking their vehicles in the street, for instance.
So the question in this case really is “Can the Owners Corporation pass, and attempt to enforce, a by-law that requires compliance with laws or regulation of another authority”? and I doubt that the answer to that would be anything other then Yes.
Is it necessary? Perhaps not, considering that compliance with those other rules is required in any case. But that doesn’t make it invalid.
I can’t think of any other reason (other than the technical invalidity, mentioned above) that would entitle the tribunal to ignore a by-law.
Perhaps there is a feeling that the tribunal could not issue an order or impose a penalty if an application was successful. The only basis for that presumption seems to be that the enforcement of the actual regulation lies with another authority – the local Council. But there are many places in law where enforcement action can be undertaken by more than one agency, so that seems an unlikely basis for their position.
It may be quite proper to suggest that the problem of short term letting is best addressed by direct appeal to the local Council by individual owners. If that is so, then a by-law that empowers the Owners Corporation to do the same thing on behalf of all owners must be perfectly valid.
But if the process was proper and the action lies within the authority of the Owners Corporation then the by-law is valid. Whether or not it is enforceable in practice is a different story, and that can usually only be determined by testing it in the legal system.
I think the process would be something like this.
The new committee resolves that the Owners Corporation will get instructions from a lawyer re issuing a demand to the members of the committee that started the legal action without approval for incurring obligations and making payments from the Owners Corporation funds without proper approval of a general meeting. There should be supporting documentation for the likely cost (it is for advice only, not for actually doing anything) to substantiate that there is no requirement for a general meeting to approve.
The advice will be that those owners should be advised of the proposed legal action, and a notice prepared and distributed for a general meeting at which the proposal for recovery of the unapproved expenditure from those committee members will be put to the owners. The Treasurer at the time should be specifically identified as the responsible person, but the liability would actually be joint and several.
Meanwhile an application is made to the Tribunal for awarding of costs that excludes from the special levy all owners who were not part of the Committee at the time that the payments were made.
With those two actions in front of them the owners who spent the money without approval will come to an agreement to meet the expenses by levy contributions based on their responsibilities, and a notice of adjudicated agreement can be lodged with the tribunal. If that doesn’t happen, the owners can then consider whether or not to take things further.
I have been in a similar situation for a number of years. The EC and the Strata Manager refuse point blank to accept that when a fund goes into deficit they must raise a special levy to reimburse the other fund that paid the bills. They claim that the next time that owners pay their levies means that the fund is 'reimbursed', and there's no need to have an EGM and a special levy. Some other owners are concerned, but mostly they don't bother to look at the issue. In 3 of the last 6 years there has been a deficit in the Admin fund.
I'm not sure if the Strata Manager reallly is that incompetent, or they just agree with The Committee for a quiet life. When an audit is required, the Strata Manager won't even show the auditor the annual financial statements – they present him with the listing of receipts and payments and he audits that. So I think they know they have something to hide. But the Committe doesn't even know the difference between a trust fund audit of receipts and expenditure, and an audit of the financial statements, so they just accept the report.
Of course, this is the same Strata Manager that couldn't correctly count the votes on a Special Resolution at the AGM until the CTTT told them they had to do it again. So there's a good chance it is simply incompetence.