Proxy votes at community meetings for absent owners

I am the President of our community (88 properties) and most of our owners are not permanent residents.  This makes it very difficult to make any decisions.  I know we can use proxy votes and our Administrator has said that each proxy voting form must be accompanied by an email to say how the owner wishes the person named on the proxy (me) to use it.

I am trying to gather proxy voting froms from all non-resident owners so that when there is an issue that needs a vote at a community meeting I can just get them to vote by email.  What I am unclear about is how the votes are counted - is it one vote per property or one vote per owner?  There is one property that has 4 owners - do they get 4 votes?  We ourselves own 2 properties - do we have a vote for each property?

I would be grateful for any advice - I can't be absolutely sure which is correct from looking at the Horizontal Property law and want to get the facts right before I collect any more proxies.

Many thanks.

Hi Linda

I beleive that it's one vote per property.

In your case 2 properties = 2 votes!

4 owners sharing 1 property = 1 shared vote!

It's one vote per property and you can only use the proxy vote for the meeting it is dated for.

Why not use a voting form as our community does. You list ALL the stuff to be voted on and the owner votes yes, no or abstain. The papers are returned to the Administrator and counted.

It is a lot of work but very fair and all owners can make their own choices.

Not forgeting, only those owners whose fees are paid up to date are eligible to vote at the meeting either in person or proxy

I believe it's only one vote per owner regardless of number of properties owned.

Many thanks  for the replies - it is definitely only one vote per property then but unclear if someone owns more than one property - anyone know the definitive answer on that?

Karensun - your voting form sounds a great idea - do you have an example?

One vote per property; if you own two properties you have two votes. This is how developers with unsold properties, or large management companies control communities - but as derek55 pointed out, any owners (including developers!) with unpaid fees cannot vote. Also remember that ultimately it's the assessment quota that counts rather than the number of votes - i.e. the owner of a studio will have a smaller quota than the owner of a 4 bedroom apartment, so if push comes to shove, his vote will count for less.

Linda, don't worry about proxies too much - for most decisions, all that is needed is a simple majority of those present (or represented) at the meeting. If people don't turn up or sign a proxy, they have forfeited their right to vote and are deemed to have voted in favour of any resolutions. If they don't like it - tough. They should attend the meeting or send a representative - it's usually only once a year after all.

Did you get out of bed the wrong side Roberto ??  

You are usually much fairer than this !  lets give all owners a chance to put their two pennorth in then they cannot moan when things don't go thier way!!

Linda, I've sent you a private message.

Roberto - I'm not sure your right?

I thought there was some ruling about 2 years ago against the very scenario you mention and it was held to be one vote regardless of number of properties owned.

I always get out the wrong side - that way, whatever happens, I'm not disappointed.

What's unfair? I never said people should not have the chance to have their say, but if owners do not particiapte in the running of their community, then they certainly can't moan about any decisions taken. Every owner has the right to attend meetings in person or by proxy. If only they would. True, sometimes I think it would be easier if nobody ever turned up to meetings - then we could just get on with the business of democratic dictatorship. But seriously, why should any president worry themselves about the opinions of owners who can't even be bothered to attend one meeting a year, when they themselves give up so much of their personal time (not to mention the stress and hassle) to ensure the community continues to function, for every owner's benefit? (Rhetorical - no response required!)