By the Paddocks Club team
Below are examples of two questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum, to show you what is available to our Community members!
Should dagga smoking be restricted to indoors?
I have been advised by an owner that there is a strong smell of dagga drifting in to her unit from an adjacent unit. While it is understood that it is now legal to smoke dagga in one’s own property, what is Paddocks opinion? Should dagga smokers be restricted to smoking inside their units only with the doors and windows closed?
Prescribe Management Rule (“PMR”) 30 makes reference to the use of Sections and Common Property. Could this Rule be used to prevent anyone from smoking where the smoke impacts on other units?
Hopefully future legislation will clear up some of the grey areas in regard to the impact on third parties of personal/home use of dagga.
But in the meantime, I suggest you treat smoke that results from dagga smoking in the same way as you would treat smoke from tobacco smoking.
You could start by asking the complaining owner to talk to the smoker(s) and ask him/her/them to be more considerate. This is the most efficient solution, if it can be made to work, But if requests and social pressure do not work and the owner continues to be seriously inconvenienced, s/he can make application to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (“CSOS”) for an order restraining the smoker from creating a nuisance. Under section 39(2) of the CSOS Act, s/he can ask for an order that the regular dagga smoking in the apartment constitutes a nuisance and requiring the relevant person(s) to do what is necessary to prevent smoke from entering the complainant’s private area. To assist the complaining owner in this regard, you can suggest that they use the online guide to making CSOS applications – Click Here for the landing page of that site.
The alternative, if the trustees are given evidence that there is in fact a nuisance (i.e. a substantial interference with the rights of the complainer that occurs on a regular basis) is for the trustees to meet and make a decision that the BC is going to get involved. They can then instruct you to get all the background information from the complainer and, on their behalf, formally demand that the nuisance stop. If that doesn’t work, the BC will have to make the CSOS application.
Votes at a special general meeting
Good afternoon Paddocks,
I don’t know if this topic has been dealt with before, but I would like some clarity on the following in terms of a Special Resolution:
When votes are tallied from the voting cards which have 3 voting categories for the motion, i.e. “For” or “Against” or “Abstain” I understand that the owners present must have a 75% vote in favour of the motion for the motion to be carried.
In the past there had been discussions regarding the “Abstain” votes which were said to be a vote in favour of the motion.
I don’t believe that this is correct, in other words there is now 3 categories of votes – For/Against/Abstain.
Are owners who vote “against” the motion obliged to state their reasons for their vote?
You are right. When at a meeting votes are counted for a special resolution:
1. the abstentions are not counted, and
2. people do not have to disclose their reasons or otherwise justify their actions in abstaining or voting for or against the motion.
An abstention is not a vote, it is a decision not to exercise the right to vote.
The number and value of all the votes cast for and against the resolution must be calculated.
The motion is passed and becomes a resolution only if:
(a) 75% of the total number of the members who voted cast their votes“For” the motion. You don’t count the number of “Abstain” votes, only those who voted for and against., AND
(b) the value of the “For” votes is at least 75% of the total values of all the votes cast “For” and “Against”.
After the votes have been counted and valued, the chairperson must announce the outcome and the number of votes cast for and against the motion, and these must also be included in the minutes. See PMR 20(8).
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 13, Issue 11.
Professor Graham Paddock, Zerlinda van der Merwe and Ané de Klerk are available to answer questions on the Paddocks Club discussion forum for Community members. Get all your questions answered by joining Paddocks Club.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.