Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #47187
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    We’re back! Like that never-ending turkey curry or the last few chocolates that nobody likes, there are quite a few left-overs from the festive season for us to get our teeth into.

    One of them is a question that’s as basic as it gets in strata politics – who decides who is “unfinancial” and therefore can’t vote at general …
    https://www.flat-chat.com.au/forum-vote-ban/

    #47188
    AvatarNice Landlord
    Flatchatter

    Thank you. But can a non-financial member demand an EGM? Our strata has a matter before the NCAT concerning an unfinancial member who has completed unauthorised and illegal renovations. The hearing is set for a few months time and since the NCAT said it would proceed to hearing, the unfinacial owner appears desperate to have an EGM seeking retrospective approval before the hearing date. The secretary of the SC will not grant the EGM because the matter is before the NCAT and also because the owner is unfinacial. Are these both legitimate reasons to refuse the calling for an EGM by the lot owner?

    #47220
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    Section 19 of the strata Act says “the secretary of the owners corporation, or another officer if the secretary is absent, must convene a general meeting … of the owners corporation as soon as practicable, and not later than 14 days after, receiving a qualified request.”  It then explains: “a request is a qualified request for the purposes of this section if it is made by one or more owners of a lot or lots in the strata scheme having a total unit entitlement of at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlements.”

    So, if your unfinancial owner has more than one quarter of the unit entitlements, I can’t see how you would stop them from demanding an EGM, regardless of their financial status.

    But then they wouldn’t be permitted to vote anyway, so the chair could immediately move to adjourn nhe meeting until such time as the matter has been resolved at NCAT and the unfinancial owner wouldn’t even be able to vote against it.  This falls under Section 20 of Schedule 1 of the Act which says:

     Adjournments

    (1)  A meeting may be adjourned for any reason if a motion is passed at the meeting for the adjournment.

    (2)  The time and place at which a meeting adjourned under this Part is to be resumed must be fixed by the person who was presiding at the meeting or, if the meeting was adjourned because of a lack of a quorum, by the person who would have presided at the meeting but for the lack of the quorum.

    (3)  The secretary of the owners corporation must give to the members of the owners corporation, at least 1 day before the resumed meeting, a written notice specifying—

    (a)  the time and place of the meeting, and

    (b)  the provisions of this Act for determining the quorum at a meeting.

     

    #47330
    AvatarNice Landlord
    Flatchatter

    Soory Flatchattersz -I posted this in the wrong spot before and have posted here now hoping for your collective wisdom:

    As stated above, the secretary of the SC will not grant the EGM because the matter is before the NCAT and also because the owner is non-financial.

    Are these both legitimate reasons for the SC to refuse the calling for an EGM by the lot owner? What can the lot owner do to force the calling of an EGM beyond getting 25 per cent of owners to agree.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by .
    #47357
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    In the absence of the 25 per cent vote, if I were the secretary, I would be very reluctant to put the Owners Corp to the expense of an EGM to help someone who won’t pay their bills.

    Neither the fact that the owners is unfinancial nor that there is an impending NCAT hearing presents any legal impediment that I can see to holding the EGM (but I am not a lawyer)  However,  there is no compulsion to do so either, so why bother?

    In the absence of a compelling reason to hold the meeting, the secretary doesn’t need to provide a reason for not doing so.

    What goes around, comes around. The unfinancial owner is depriving the other owners of their share of funds and most buildings don’t have that much leeway to carry other people’s debts.

    Also, if the recalcitrant owner can’t raise the 25 percent of support required to call an EGM, they would have very little chance of getting the 50 per cent of votes required to pass approvals of their work let alone the 75 per cent of support for special resolutions that may be required as part of the renovations.

    The unfinancial owner could, theoretically, take action under section 232(2) of the Act to compel the Owners Corp to hold the EGM except the already scheduled hearing would occur before the new one.

    Also, under Section 232(3)(b) A person is not entitled “to make an application for an order under this section if the person has commenced, and not discontinued, proceedings in connection with the settlement of a dispute or complaint the subject of the application.”

    I can’t think of any other way the unfinancial owner could pursue this – but I am not a strata lawyer and perhaps they should consult one.

    That said, they would make their lives easier for themselves and the neighbours – whom they are doubtless annoying – by paying their bills before they start trying to get support from the very people who are carrying their debts.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by .
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.