We asked two of our sponsors – Strata Choice and Sachs Grace Broome what they thought about by-laws forbidding owners from contacting the committee or strata managers.  

Specifically, in this story, we cited a proposed bylaw that said: 

1. An owner or tenant of a lot must not send unreasonable, unnecessary or excessive correspondence or post unauthorised material on the common property.

2. The Strata Committee will not be required to read or reply to correspondence which is repetitive, excessive, disorganised, addresses issues that have already been resolved or is unreasonable.

This is what they said:

Daniel Linders, Group Managing Director of Strata Choice strata managers:

 I think it is same as any bylaw that you write that attempts to breach a higher law or case law. So trying to quieten someone against their rights won’t and should not work. So in my opinion this would not be upheld as valid if tested in NCAT.

Saying that it is written quite well, it attempts to make a sort of ‘rules’ which is a good idea when you have problems, however they will not stand up if tested, but then again they probably never plan to test it, they may be trying this as an attempt to bring some reasonableness to the building (if their concerns are genuine).

These: 

1. display unauthorised advertising material on the common property. – THIS IS LEGAL AS YOU CAN PLACE THINGS ON COMMON PROPERTY
2. The Owners Corporation, including the Strata Committee, will not be required to address or reply to any correspondence from lot owners which  is repetitive, excessive, disorganised, addresses issues which have already been considered and determined and/ or is unreasonable.

These items are fair enough and make sense, I might implement in our business!!!!

David Sachs of Principal of Sachs Gerace Broome said:

I have seen by-laws similar to this. My thoughts are:

1.  Although it is part of the Secretary’s function to reply to communications addressed to the Owners Corporation, this does not mean s/he is obliged to reply to each and every communication;
2. By-laws that use terms like “excessive”, “repetitive”, “disorganised” and “unreasonable” are bound to be ineffective because these terms are too subjective and incapable of precise application.  I think it purports to arrogate a power to the Secretary to refuse to reply to correspondence other than on the basis of a bona fide assessment of his/her functions;
3. The Owners Corporation cannot refuse to address a matter raised by a lot owner based on the form of the communication.  It is obliged to deal with its substance;
4. Owners can write to the strata committee and the Owners Corporation as they see fit, provided they do not breach any other law (i.e. threats etc);
5. I think these by-laws are really only designed to try and send a message to unruly lot owners and could never practically be enforced;
6. As for displaying advertising material on common property, I am not sure why this would be part of this type of by-law, but owners do not have a right just to put up advertisements on the common property.

Overall, I think “gagging” by-laws have dubious validity and would be almost impossible to effectively enforce.