Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We don’t even know how this would be possible. If a meeting is petitioned by 25% of the unit titles management act 2011, there is an obligation to hold the meeting regardless. Just because the owners refused to pay would not be an acceptable reason not to hold it.
25% of owners have requested a meeting, the executive committee MUST convene it.
There are two different issues here. Firstly is whether the OC head installed the cameras with a legitimate committee decision.
I take your point but I don’t think it’s just a committee decision – it’s a change to common property and I think that needs a by-law approved by a super-majority at a general meeting.
You are right for NSW, it does require that, unless there is another by-law providing authorisation
I wonder will there be discussion of the one-sided Contract of Appointment used by the SCA.
We are trying to get attention to it and we have been very vocal about SCA and the inappropriate control they have over the industry in decreasing competition in the industry. We spoke a bit about contracts here… but there are some limitations depending on which outlet we are speaking to as to when we can name them.
There are two different issues here. Firstly is whether the OC head installed the cameras with a legitimate committee decision.
The second one is privacy. In short, provided the cameras are installed somewhere where there is no expectation of privacy which just about all common areas would not have (except for a bathroom or changing area), that isn’t an issue. Even cameras pointing across a road towards a front door or window of another property is fine as their is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that instance.
Audio recording should be disabled and it is fine. The fact the cameras have the capability isn’t an issue – in fact most CCTV cameras have that capability now. The rules on audio recording and what is allowed between each state. NSW usually needs all parties to consent whereas in Vic, it needs just one party to a conversation to consent. Recording a conversation someone isn’t a party to is a lawful interception though, so audio recording should never be done.
Most people mistake what their rights to privacy are within an OC.
Who gets to access the footage and how it is managed, is a matter for the committee and how they want to manage that. The privacy act applies in virtually no OC (unless it has a turnover of $3m or more) so there isn’t an issue there either. It would be expected that at least one or two committee members would have access in their role as committee members. Expecting it to be done only via a security company is a bit extreme, expensive and unnecessary.
If you don’t like it, get on the committee and get other owners on board to ‘get the numbers’ to put a different policy in place. However, assuming no audio recording is being done, everything you have stated is perfectly fine and has no privacy issues. It is quite normal. If you are a tenant, you don’t get a vote as you aren’t an owner. That may sound harsh, but that’s the rules. You don’t have any ownership of common property and how it is managed.
- This reply was modified 2 months, 2 weeks ago by .
The issue with the automatically negative approaches already given is, what are you really achieving by blocking a legal right? Trying to block legal access to property really doesn’t achieve anything and misses the benefits. It reeks a bit of American style home owner association control and compliance measures which we don’t have a basis for in Australia.
Having an owner use the common property, who is a landlord – them accessing and using common property means they arent just an absentee landlord. They are accessing, using and valuing the property.
The reality is, there is no lawful right to restrict their access. Suggesting a committee “make their lives difficult” is even more silly and is acting in bd faith. That is the exact path to create entirely unnecessary
They are more likely to maintain their own property and be involved to some extent, valuing common property. Isn’t that what committees and owners want?
Sometimes the short sighted nature of some views such as expressed here, which certainly aren’t backed up by law bewilder and is a throwback to an older generation view of “don’t let someone get something I don’t” sort of mentality which is a race to the bottom, rather than seeing the mutual benefit and interest in just following the laws and allowing people to do what they are allowed to.
You can attempt to block. It almost certainly isn’t legal. However why block when there is virtually no downside and the upside is that the owner is a member of the community who is more likely the positively contribute? Blocking this seems to be poor faith and creating conflict over something so petty for no good reason.
- This reply was modified 6 months ago by .
The Manager cannot change the motion. The Minutes are a legal record of the meeting and the motions which passed.
If the contract has different terms, then that may create a conflict however the manager CANNOT knowingly change minutes to a set of events which did not happen. That is very illegal and you should be seeking legal advice on this.
The minutes under the various state acts must be an accurate representation of the meetings and the motions which passed. The manager or chair cannot retrospectively change those.
The manager can challenge the motion with the committee and the OC but cannot change and given the contract term gives the manager a financial benefit likely puts them in breach of their duty to act in the best interests of the OC as there is now a conflict of interest as well.
If any manager does this, the OC should be seriously looking at terminating the contract and looking elsewhere as this is a fundamental breach of trust, and of their duties as the manager on behalf of the OC.
They are clearly putting their own interests above the legislation and their legal responsibility to reflect the minutes.
The first thing the committee should do, is write their own minutes distributing them and disregard the managers minutes as not being an accurate reflection of the meeting.