07 Mar 2015 12:44 PM:

There's disagreement at our Community because proposals that affect Community Statutes were voted upon at our AGM even though they were not identified specifically on the agenda.  So, those not attending the meeting would have been unaware, and those holding proxy votes for others had no instructions about how to cast these votes.

I understand that unlike changes to Community Rules, which just need to be approved by a simple majority of owners entiltled to vote, changes to Community Statutes can only be made if approval is unanimous.  Assuming that this is correct, clearly a single vote against would cause a proposal to fail, but what if someone abstained?   Does this abstention have any effect?  The vote would not have been unanimous, but no-one would actually have voted against.

The proposals were actually carried on the day because, although someone holding a proxy vote thought they'd used it to abstain, they didn't make this clear enough to be recognised, so the vote was recorded as being unanimous. 

Only if an abstention would cause the proposals to fail would it be worth challenging the record, so I hope someone knows the answer?

 

Thread: Changing Community Statutes

--------------------------------------

06 Jun 2012 10:59 AM:

Two very interesting points from Justin and cbrammeld, which we'll put to our Administrator 

Justin's information is very encouraging, but seems to conflict we've what our Administartors have told us previously, about developers failing to pay their mortgages (bank loans), or going into administration and having their properties repossessed, so we'll go back to them on this  I'll let you know the outcome.

If the debts are never written off, am I right in thinking that they'd be capped at this year's plus last year's debt, no further back?

Colin

 

Thread: Essential Improvements to Community Infrastructure

--------------------------------------

04 Jun 2012 10:55 AM:

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond Justin.

Actually, we do add contingencies to all our budgets now, but at the end of the year this all gets spent, plus some more - we've never been able to build up a reserve.  Increasing the budget puts a strain on some owners who do try to pay their way.

My point about prospective new owners is that if and when these apartments are repossed by CAM Bank, as I understand it, the debts on the properies will be wiped out, so new owners buying from CAM Bank would not have to pay anything at all - we'd not get any of our money back by having increased community fees.

I'm wondering if there's some other way, maybe by creating a loan account, financed by a few of the financially better off owners, to which new owners would have to pay their share. We accept having to pay for all the usual maintenance costs, but it's a few existing owners keep having to pay to put right infrastructure problems, that usually the developer would sort out, that's difficult to take.

Colin

Thread: Essential Improvements to Community Infrastructure

--------------------------------------

02 Jun 2012 1:28 PM:

My question is - what is the fairest way to finance essential infrastructure repairs (not routine maintenance) given that our developer has disappeared ?

Our community has to replace its mains water-pipe because the current one is unsuitable and keeps bursting.  The cost to replace it is estimated at 6000 euros. 

Our developer has left huge unpaid communty fees, and cannot be contacted.  Less than half the 33 apartments have been sold, and of those that have been, a few owners are always very late in paying their fees, a couple do not pay at all (we've gone down the legal route and, although a charge has been put on unsold properties, we've been stuck with the lawyers bills.  These unsold apartments are now likely to be reclaimed by CAM bank who'll then not be responsible for paying any of the unpaid fees.

Should those of us that do pay fees, just have to finance this work ourselves.  I'm thinking that when CAM Bank sells the repossessed apartments at knock down prices, the new buyers will benefit from the replaced pipe as well, and they'll not be responsible for any of the unpaid debts on their new apartments.  So, should they not be asked to pay a contribution to costs that really are not the current Community's responsibility.  This isn't the only infrastructure problem that we're faced with, just an example. 

Has anyone else had any experience of this type of issue?  I'd be grateful for any advice. 

Thread: Essential Improvements to Community Infrastructure

--------------------------------------