NEW OWNERS ON PAR WITH LONG-TIMERS
Q Our 25-year-old condominium complex has a board composed of original owners. Some of these board members have openly stated that the newbies are not entitled to the same level of consideration and service because they have not paid into the reserve fund for the same period of time as the original owners. As a result, they have become somewhat secretive in terms of board business. As an owner in good standing, it is my understanding that, upon written request, I am entitled to receive information and documents relating to board business.
It is the board’s position that they do not have to provide individual owners with any relevant documents except at the AGM. I have made written requests to receive both electronic copies of approved board minutes and monthly financial statements. I want to be informed with respect to the business activities of the board. In a stand-alone home I would be responsible for looking after my affairs, and in a condo complex there is a collective group of owners that have the same responsibility. Can an owner or authorized agent receive copies of duly approved board minutes and monthly financial statements either electronically or in paper form?
A The situation you find yourself in is absolutely ludicrous. The thought that a new owner, or ‘newbie’ as they say, does not enjoy the same privileges as other owners who have been around for much longer is not only against the law, but also flies in the face of common decency and respect to your fellow owners. There is nothing under the Condominium Property Act that creates different classes of owners in any condominium. An owner who has just been around for a day has the same rights and privileges under the law as an owner who has been around for 35 years. The fact that the board is meeting secretly or not sharing information with the owners is also contrary to the basic principles of condominium living. The Condominium Property Act (section 44) sets out a list of things you can ask for and the board is required to respond within a 10-day period. Helpful Hint: Well managed condominium buildings with boards that share information and communicate effectively are the most pleasant places to live because owners are given information without resorting to the Condominium Property Act and demanding the information.
Q My condo board recently signed a code of conduct at the request of the property manager. The board then decided that it was a private issue and that they did not feel it was necessary to post the signed code of conduct. Is it the board’s privilege to deny owners the text of the code of conduct? Is it normal for owners to expect that they can see the code of conduct for their board?
A As an owner, you are entitled to read and review the text of the code of conduct. How the board decided that this was a private issue is beyond me, and the property manager should know that this information should be made public. The board speaks for the condominium corporation, and has been elected by the owners. The owners have every right to see that level of information. If the board continues to refuse to provide the text of the code of conduct, at your next Annual General Meeting (AGM) I would encourage you to make a motion that the code of conduct be released to all owners and be made public. If that motion passes by a majority of the owners present or by proxy at that meeting, then the board will be obligated to provide that information. I am hopeful that you do not have to resort to that level of political gamesmanship to get information that should be made readily available. Helpful Hint: When boards hide information that should be made available to the owners, it says a lot about the management of the condominium corporation and also the individual board members. It does not reflect well on the overall quality of life of the condominium.
Q In 2001 we purchased a life-lease condominium, and in 2003 we moved in. All major appliances were included. We upgraded our refrigerator to a double-door icemaker model. Recently, the icemaker began to leak water. Our maintenance department tried to stop it. Eventually, they called in an expert but the leak continued for over a month, causing floor and wall damage. Plus, the refrigerator sat in the middle of the kitchen floor for a couple of weeks. The ‘expert’ was called in again after our maintenance department had monitored the situation once or twice a day, removing ice from frozen foods in the freezer. This time the leak was repaired. Several weeks later, our community administrator arrived at the door with a flooring specialist. They left after inspecting the area, and two months later we still have not seen any action. Where do we stand on this issue?
A What an unfortunate situation you have encountered with respect to your life-lease condominium. There is no simple answer, given the fact that a review of your bylaws and other policies would be required to give you a definitive answer. I do not know what the cost is for the type of issues you are facing. However, I would suggest that you seek the advice of a lawyer. Ask for an opinion on whether or not it is your responsibility or the responsibility of the condominium corporation to pay for the damages and repair. It is unfortunate that I am not able to give you a definitive answer. Helpful Hint: Unfortunately, no two condominium corporations are the same. In some condominiums, for example, the responsibility to maintain and repair the doors and windows rests with the condominium corporation, while in others it is the responsibility of individual owners. One needs to review the bylaws and the condominium plan to determine the answers to those questions.
Q I recently bought a condo and was charged a $250 damage deposit and a $150 non-refundable move-in fee. What did I get with this move-in fee? The use of the elevator, and maintenance people put up padding inside the elevator. This looks like a cash grab. What allows condo boards to charge these fees?
A This issue comes up from time to time. Unfortunately, the moving fees and deposits are an issue that are within the jurisdiction of the board to make with respect to how they will operate their building. Some buildings hire someone to help with moving, and there is a cost to that. The damage deposit is self-explanatory, as the condominium corporation wants to be protected if a wall or the floor is damaged as a result of moving furniture into the building. The issue of the non-refundable fee is debatable, in that I am hopeful that you got something out of it. If you feel strongly about this, then I would encourage you to attend the next AGM and raise this as an issue, and ask the board to reconsider the fee amounts. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation. Helpful Hint: The administration of a condominium building rests with the board and the owners. The board will try to find revenue sources to minimize the cost implication for owners. As long as the fees are reasonable and balance the interests of the people moving in and the corporation generally, then you should not have a problem.
Q Our condominium board recently hired an individual to boot cars in violation of the visitor parking bylaw. Our visitor parking is indoors and requires a resident to fob visitors in, so it is not open to the public. The bylaw states “a visitor may only park his motor vehicle in those areas designated by the board.” In the violation of bylaws section, the only reference to a fine for violation of bylaws is “the board may impose a fine, not exceeding $250 per infraction, if the breach is not rectified within the time specified in the notice.” Booting services on private property are not regulated, and they can charge whatever they want. I was hoping that our bylaw would protect us from unscrupulous booters, but ours charges $300 plus tax. Is this acceptable?
A The board must have been facing a lot of problems to force it to resort to what I would consider a very draconian type of action to deal with a breach. As an owner, it is your responsibility to make sure that your visitors are parking properly and are abiding by the rules. If they are not and the problem persists, then the board must react. I hope the board tried other solutions to deal with this problem before resorting to implementing the boot program. In a recent case from Alberta, a judge made it clear that the enforcement of breaches under the bylaws should not be treated as a version of legislated inhumanity. Helpful Hint: Boards have a responsibility to enforce the rules and bylaws, and owners have a responsibility to follow the rules and bylaws. If the owners are following the rules and bylaws, then the board doesn’t have to enforce the rules and bylaws. I worry that there is sometimes a sense of entitlement to people parking in that there are no consequences.