Question: If it’s a function of the OC to grant or deny renovation approval, and the OC needs to convene a meeting to provide that approval, why is the owner charged for the OC to perform this function?
If it is common practice for strata managing agents to charge a fee for arranging ad-hoc meetings, where is the strata manager’s authority to charge for this? Who are they charging, the owners corporation (OC) or the owner?
If approval is required, isn’t it a function of the OC to grant or deny that approval? If the OC needs to convene a meeting to perform that function, why is the owner charged for the OC to perform this function?
These charges may be “usual”, but I cannot see how they are justified.
Let’s expand on this user pay idea: if lot owners want something, they pay for the meeting. Can’t this be extrapolated to any motion on an agenda submitted by an owner looking for approval for something not required by the Act? Would this lead to pro rata charges to owners for the cost of the agenda preparation and mailout? This could go on and on.
Answer: It’s important to distinguish between standard governance responsibilities and non-standard requests.
To clarify, the practice of charging for meetings to approve owner requests, including renovations, arises from the relationship between the strata managing agent and the owners corporation. The agent’s agreement with the owners corporation typically includes provisions for fees associated with services outside standard management tasks — such as arranging ad-hoc meetings. These fees are billed to the owners corporation, which may choose to recover costs from the requesting owner, depending on the nature of the request and the scheme’s by-laws.
Importantly, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 does not impose an obligation on owners corporations to convene meetings whenever requested by an individual owner. Owners corporations have discretion in determining when and how meetings are convened, and it is reasonable to recover associated costs in cases where urgency or specific owner requests drive the need for additional meetings.
Your point about expanding this approach to other motions is noted, but it’s important to distinguish between standard governance responsibilities and non-standard requests. This practice ensures fairness by balancing administrative efficiency with individual requests’ impact on the collective.
This post appears in the March 2025 edition of The NSW Strata Magazine.
Tim Sara
Sara Strata
E: tim@sarastrata.com.au
P: 04 8500 7960
Leave a Reply