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!
Can a body corporate withhold a levy clearance certificate for levies due on another unit?
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
Can a body corporate withhold a levy clearance certificate on a specific unit due to non-payment of levies on another unit owned by the same person?
Regards
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
No. The BC can only withhold the clearance certificate if amounts are due in respect of that unit.
This is stated in section 15B(3)(a)(i)(aa) of the Sectional Titles Act, which requires that:
(the) body corporate has certified that all moneys due to the body corporate by the transferor in respect of the said unit have been paid, or that provision has been made to the satisfaction of the body corporate for the payment thereof; (underlining added for emphasis)
It is important to remember that the Sectional Titles Act remains relevant whenever there is a survey or registration-related issue.
Regards,
Graham
Do fine amounts need to be specified in the conduct rules of a sectional title scheme?
Member’s question:
Good day Paddocks,
We submitted rules to CSOS who approved same. Penalty clause read that members will decide on the amount for the penalties each year at the AGM. The actual penalty amounts were not registered with the rules – so if members decide at AGM to amend the penalty amounts for the year ahead, they won’t have to re-register the rules.
Someone informed us that the penalty amount/s need to be registered with the rules, otherwise they won’t be enforceable. The rules/process did allow for a first and second notice to go out to the owner before penalties were issued. These notices did inform the owner of the possible penalty amounts (as per a resolution of penalty amounts by members at the last AGM) and CSOS approved the rules without the penalty amounts being attached to the rules.
Thank you.
Graham’s answer:
Dear member,
In principle, the setting of fines at the AGM each year by majority owner vote appears to be a fair and transparent way of dealing with the issue – and it caters for inflation and other changed circumstances, introducing a sensible degree of flexibility into the provision.
The rules must specifically cater for the fine, but if the amount of the fine is not actually specified in the text of the rule I don’t think this means the fine is not enforceable, as long as the amount of the fine is determinable in accordance with a process that is set out in the rules – which seems to be the case here.
You read the fining rule with the latest applicable owner resolution.
Regards,
Graham
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 15, Issue 12.
Graham Paddock is 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.
Recent Posts
Archives
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
Recent Comments