Sectional Title - Changing the security calcuation

Have you taken a look at whether the fight about splitting the security costs is worth it? As far as I can see, unless you have MASSIVELY different unit sizes, you are basically fighting about like R50 a month. In that case, is it really worth the effort?

Also, what are the chances of it going through considering all the owners of smaller units are likely to fight against it?
 
Jehosefat said:
Have you taken a look at whether the fight about splitting the security costs is worth it? As far as I can see, unless you have MASSIVELY different unit sizes, you are basically fighting about like R50 a month. In that case, is it really worth the effort?
Also, what are the chances of it going through considering all the owners of smaller units are likely to fight against it?
Click to expand...
We did, and it's definitely a big difference. The largest unit pays R380/month more than the smallest! We've only got 30-odd units and we employ full-time security and maintenance staff. We've considered some alternatives but, for now, it's the only solution that gives us peace of mind as a group. Still ... the difference between the smallest and largest units is not negligible.
 
Inevitability said:
We did, and it's definitely a big difference. The largest unit pays R380/month more than the smallest! We've only got 30-odd units and we employ full-time security and maintenance staff. We've considered some alternatives but, for now, it's the only solution that gives us peace of mind as a group. Still ... the difference between the smallest and largest units is not negligible.
Click to expand...

Okay so if you're 30 units, you only require 35% of the owners to actually show up, bam quorum and your managing agent can go f off. Call the SGM to sort this out.
 
Lupus said:
Okay so if you're 30 units, you only require 35% of the owners to actually show up, bam quorum and your managing agent can go f off. Call the SGM to sort this out.
Click to expand...
Been doing more digging and Trafalgar has an online chat feature on their website. Super fast response from them, and for no charge. The Consultant there says we need a Special Resolution to change the calculation method from PQ-based to flat rates (or, as she calls it "nominated values"). This is a big thing, though, cos we can't cherry pick what to switch from the PQ system. It's all-or-nothing... we have to either choose all services to be billed by PQ or all services to be flat-rate. So maybe the Angor agent wasn't completely full of BS, cos she did say something similar, except she said we need 100% buy-in from all owners. So we'll call it 50% BS then :)

So, it's not exactly what I was hoping for and it's a big difference charging a flat rate for one item (which I can justify based on the way the service is provided equally to all) compared to charging a flat rate for all services.

But just to complete the point on Special Resolutions...
As far as I've seen in the Act, that means a 75% approval to pass the resolution. The interesting bit of reading I've done boils down to this:
If you call a meeting and enough owners don't pitch up to make a quorum, the meeting is automatically postponed to exactly 1 week later at the same place. But if, at the 2nd attempt, people still don't pitch up, then whoever is there (as long as it's 2 or more) automatically make up the quorum and you can go ahead with business, including passing a Special Resolution. To get the resolution passed, you still need 75% of those present to approve it. So you could get 2 owners pitching up for the 2nd SGM attempt and they both agree and the Special Resolution is passed... I find this to be amazing!
So the OP has been answered ... Thanks to everyone for the input. I'm gonna take this to our Trustees' meeting and see how the others feel and then have a chat with some of the owners cos this needs some serious thought.
 
Inevitability said:
Been doing more digging and Trafalgar has an online chat feature on their website. Super fast response from them, and for no charge. The Consultant there says we need a Special Resolution to change the calculation method from PQ-based to flat rates (or, as she calls it "nominated values"). This is a big thing, though, cos we can't cherry pick what to switch from the PQ system. It's all-or-nothing... we have to either choose all services to be billed by PQ or all services to be flat-rate. So maybe the Angor agent wasn't completely full of BS, cos she did say something similar, except she said we need 100% buy-in from all owners. So we'll call it 50% BS then :)

So, it's not exactly what I was hoping for and it's a big difference charging a flat rate for one item (which I can justify based on the way the service is provided equally to all) compared to charging a flat rate for all services.

But just to complete the point on Special Resolutions...
As far as I've seen in the Act, that means a 75% approval to pass the resolution. The interesting bit of reading I've done boils down to this:
If you call a meeting and enough owners don't pitch up to make a quorum, the meeting is automatically postponed to exactly 1 week later at the same place. But if, at the 2nd attempt, people still don't pitch up, then whoever is there (as long as it's 2 or more) automatically make up the quorum and you can go ahead with business, including passing a Special Resolution. To get the resolution passed, you still need 75% of those present to approve it. So you could get 2 owners pitching up for the 2nd SGM attempt and they both agree and the Special Resolution is passed... I find this to be amazing!
So the OP has been answered ... Thanks to everyone for the input. I'm gonna take this to our Trustees' meeting and see how the others feel and then have a chat with some of the owners cos this needs some serious thought.
Click to expand...

That does explain how some of our stuff got passed, as a lot of the times it ends up being 5 of us at the AGM, our of 35 units.
 
We always get quorum, not because people come but because each trustee chases a few neighbours for nomination forms. Then we can each vote with 5 votes. Our last AGM was the biggest attendance of all time at about 50% and that was after our blow out with Angor. They had incorrectly calculated our PQ for about 6 years. New agent found it and told all the owners how it was changing so everyone was curious/furious as to how it happened. Was one of the more interesting AGM's I have attended. Had one unit that wanted us to backdate correct the incorrectly billed units for 6 years which would have been impossible considering ownerships changes etc. Fortunately I managed to persuade everyone in the room other than her that we should leave the past in the past and move on and if anyone wanted to recover overspending they would have to sue Angor who made the mistake in the first place. So glad we got away from Angor in the end.
 
Cius said:
We always get quorum, not because people come but because each trustee chases a few neighbours for nomination forms. Then we can each vote with 5 votes. Our last AGM was the biggest attendance of all time at about 50% and that was after our blow out with Angor. They had incorrectly calculated our PQ for about 6 years. New agent found it and told all the owners how it was changing so everyone was curious/furious as to how it happened. Was one of the more interesting AGM's I have attended. Had one unit that wanted us to backdate correct the incorrectly billed units for 6 years which would have been impossible considering ownerships changes etc. Fortunately I managed to persuade everyone in the room other than her that we should leave the past in the past and move on and if anyone wanted to recover overspending they would have to sue Angor who made the mistake in the first place. So glad we got away from Angor in the end.
Click to expand...

How does one change youe PQ? It's stipulated in your title deed for your section, not something that can be changed by the trustees or bc?
 
PQ did not change, but at some point the managing agent needs to apply the PQ to the financial calculation that stipulates individual levies. That is what they messed up. So PQ's in our complex are mostly right (one or two units did illegal additions back in the day) but the levies where being incorrectly calculated. Some units where as much as R200 over or under paying. Was a disaster.

Funny thing was we did not dump angor for that reason, it was due to them not dealing issues correctly and the subsequent break down that led to it. Our chairman eventually lost it and escalated the team to some exec at Angor and they responded by giving us notice that they no longer wanted to look after us (a move we where about to make soon anyways). Anyways, made the decision easier and shortly thereafter we found out just how deep the incompetence/overloading goes at Angor via the new managing agent.

Sad part is I can hardly blame the individual complex managers you interact with at Angor. They are just overloaded. Each team can have up to 30 complexes they manage.
 
Lupus said:
We also only have about 30 to 40% attend our AGM's, the ones that don't are always the biggest moan when things need to get done. Do they know they can appoint a proxy? It's a 30 second thing to do, fill in a form and bam, also you need to have these meetings to make sure things are running smoothly and in cases like yours things are being done fairly. Call an SGM, if there is less than 40% keep insisting that if the owners cannot make it they need to appoint a proxy, this is for the good of their pockets too.
Click to expand...
Our agents have started billing us R2000 for AGM meetings insufficiency attended that need rescheduling. I have no real issue with that - it's these lazy owners that can't be bothered to attend a meeting once a year to have a say in how their investment is managed that annoys me.
 
saor said:
Our agents have started billing us R2000 for AGM meetings insufficiency attended that need rescheduling. I have no real issue with that - it's these lazy owners that can't be bothered to attend a meeting once a year to have a say in how their investment is managed that annoys me.
Click to expand...
They can't do that? They postpone it for one more week, if there are still insufficient owners, then those that are there can go ahead anyway.
Fining everyone is a little unfair.
 
Lupus said:
They can't do that? They postpone it for one more week, if there are still insufficient owners, then those that are there can go ahead anyway.
Fining everyone is a little unfair.
Click to expand...
It's a single R2000 fine to the BC. They rent a space to have a meeting, all the paperwork is dated etc. I can understand their frustration at having to organise a second meeting.
 
isie said:
// wonders if he knows you
Click to expand...
PM sent


isie said:
Currently no prescribed limit on the number of owners one proxy can represent
Click to expand...
An extract from a 2012 paddocks blog post:
In terms of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act No. 8 of 2011 (STSM Act), which is not in operation yet, there will be a limit of two proxies for any person. Section 6(5) of the STSM Act states the following: “(5) A member may be represented in person or by proxy at such meeting: Provided that a person must not act as a proxy for more than two members.”
Click to expand...
But this Act has since been enacted (since Oct 2016)

Blog post link
 
Inevitability said:
PM sent



An extract from a 2012 paddocks blog post:

But this Act has since been enacted (since Oct 2016)

Blog post link
Click to expand...

PM replied to :)
More recent article (2016) says 2 proxy limit is under review

The Sectional Titles Management Act has introduced the concept of limiting any one person to holding a maximum of two proxies, and this is going to have to be reviewed for a number of reasons.”

Spencer says the reasons for this include:

1. It could well be unconstitutional to prevent anyone from appointing any particular person as their proxy - another word for a power of attorney to vote on their behalf. How can you be prevented from asking somebody else that you have confidence in to act on your behalf?

2. Secondly, it discriminates between owners. For example, if two owners own one unit each and another owns 60 units, then the proxies for the first two owners counts as only two votes, while just for a single other owner it would count for 60 votes.

By imposing this limitation there are a number of really practical problems
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X