I’m covering the biggest changes that I see for owners and managers coming out of the Strata Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (NSW). 

**UPDATE** Since this podcast episode was published, the new strata law has commenced! The laws referred to in the podcast started on 11 December 2023. 

Links mentioned:

7 Responses

  1. Hi Amanda – thank you for bringing this to our attention. A proposed change to the Community Land Management Act that I think should be highlighted is in relation to ‘pecuniary interest’ under Schedule 2 Meeting procedures of association committees. Currently if a member of the committee declares a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter, the association committee can decide to allow that person to remain in the meeting to discuss and determine an outcome. The proposed changes to the CLMA will omit the words ‘unless the association committee otherwise determines’ and simply state that the committee member must not be present during the discussion or take part in the decision. I think this is a significant and welcome change.
    Having been through a NCAT matter where the actions/inaction and performance of committee members were in question, I support the ability to remove a committee member by means of an ordinary resolution at a general meeting. While it is still a significant hurdle to removing someone from the committee, it is certainly a step in the right direction.
    Another change in the Amendment Bill that is noteworthy is the transfer of funds between the administrative and capital works funds and the requirement for a general meeting of the association to approve the transaction within 3 months of the transfer. This is an important safeguard once a budget has been approved at the AGM – ask me how I know…

  2. Thanks Amanda for the information!!
    Hope that the life of Strata who own a Home in a Strata Scheme changes for the better.

    Thanks again!!

    fernanda

  3. Hi Amanda,
    The 50% vote to remove a rogue SC member is curious because as if a rogue secretary is going to call the meeting if they are the target of dismissal. As if a secretary is going to call a meeting to jeopardize the position of an ally on the committee. Yes, I understand the qualified request provision but it in itself is a hard bar to get over given the apathetic nature of most owners, the potential social ramifications of being part of a ‘coup’ and the fear of the cost of a general meeting.

    Additionally NCAT have set a high bar to remove a SC member under s 238 and so if a meeting removes a SC member who has not met with the dizzy height of the NCAT bar is it then open to the removed member to claim it was an unreasonable decision?
    On the other side of the coin can an aggrieved owner claim the decision not to dismiss was unreasonable; where is the bar set?
    It all comes back to the test which seems to be is the SC member/s causing serious dysfunction.
    The new provision looks great on paper but so did, the proven to be utterly useless, s 238.

    Since when, post Cooper, do OCs have to approve an assistance animal?

    Emergency repairs by definition do not seem to cover access to the lot.
    We are a little unusual in have 10+km of internal dirt roads and when a road washes away is it emergency spending to re-establish access to the lot/s; not by definition it seems.

    Two quotes is one thing but where is the provision to stop one quote being a sham for the sake of compliance.
    Our second quote for management (over $30k) was not even sought until after the AGM notice was sent. It was obtained to tick a box, not to be seriously considered.
    We have tradies (mates) who live in the SP who quote against each other. One goes high, the other goes really high and their associates on the SC choose the lesser quote in a jobs for the boys charade.
    It is not often we deal with quotes from outside sources.

    This is still far from a framework that shuts down non compliance cultures and dominant rogues who have clique based support.
    I shall read the second reading as i always enjoy the contrast between the purpose the Parliament claims and the way NCAT interpret.

    1. As a first time strata owner of a small strata with a building manager / property manager and strata owner
      who owns the strata committee and the strata management perhaps we can stop the misappropriation of strata funds .

  4. 2nd reading “I have noted, this bill introduces some of the more urgent recommendations identified in the statutory review…”
    And at this point it is time to switch off because clearly some of this is not urgent and whoever is giving the speech is adding whatever spin they can to make this look far more important than it is.
    It is urgent we change the voting threshold to remove a SC member … urgent – LOL

    The 50% vote to remove a rogue SC member is curious because as if a rogue secretary is going to call the meeting if they are the target of dismissal. As if a secretary is going to call a meeting to jeopardise the position of an ally on the committee. YES, I understand the qualified request provision but it in itself is a hard bar to get over given the apathetic nature of most owners, the potential social ramifications of being part of a coup and the fear of the cost of a general meeting.

    Additionally NCAT have set a high bar to remove a member under s 238 and so if a meeting removes a SC member who has not met with the dizzy height of the NCAT bar is it then open to the removed member to claim it was an unreasonable decision?
    On the other side of the coin can an aggrieved owner claim the decision not to dismiss was unreasonable; where is the bar set?
    It all comes back to the test which seems to be is the member causing serious dysfunction.
    The new provision looks great on paper but so did, the proven to be utterly useless, s 238.

    Since when do OCs have to approve an assistance animal?

    Emergency repairs by definition do not seem to cover access to the lot.
    We are a little unusual in have 10+km of internal dirt roads and when a road washes away is it emergency spending to re-establis access to the lot/s; not by definition it seems.

  5. As a first time strata owner of a small strata with a building manager / property manager and strata owner
    who owns the strata committee and the strata management perhaps we can stop the misappropriation of strata funds .

  6. Im in a new unit block of under 4 years.
    No experience on the committee but a lot of experts.
    They have not had 1 meeting outside the AGMs the whole time.
    No communication. Now we are paying extra levies & our Strata fees have doubled.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *