Thanks Jimmy T and Kiwipaul. 

This is relating to my post on excessive noise from my neighbours in a tiled unit. 

The submission included the noise diary (40pages – as my respondents were fairly active in enjoying life in their tiled unit) as well as copies of my emails to the Strata Manager pleading for assistance- the Strata Manager told me I needed to include all relevant information but I assumed (silly me being a novice to CTTT) that all  of this information would only go to CTTT, Strata Manager, the respondent and myself.

I’ve noticed now the CTTT state the submission/ request for adjudication should only contain information you want others to see (again my novice experience – I thought only CTTT, respondent and myself would be involved). 

I’m aware CTTT has also provided a full copy of my submission to the Secretary of the Body Corporate as well as the Strata Manager. 

Any tips on how to get through the adjudication process?? 

hello again,

just a progress update and one further question – it seems all owners have a copy of everything I sent CTTT. I have had 2 approaches regarding the complaint – one from an owner with floating floors (I understood why), and second from an adjacent block asking what outcomes I wanted. 

It seems the respondent is now seeking out supporting letters from other in the block to indicate I am a vexacious complainent. I also think this is an attempt to deflect from their obligation to a) mitigate the noise of the hard floor and b) control the noise from their property.

I’ve provided CTTT with a copy of the BSA standards for flooring, along with research for plasterboards to reduce noise transmission through the common wall to my property. 

Any hints, tips or advice on whether this is the correct path to take?? I am getting the feeling the respondent is compiling a personal attack with a laundry list of supporting letters about my requests to abide by Strata by-laws, and creating a smear campaign against me. 

If the laundry list of complaint letters go in – should I respond to each within CTTT, it seems like a deflection of the issue being bought to the adjudicators attention. 

I realise as Jimmy T has mentioned in this forum before – that this takes a toll on not only our physical health, but mental health in dealing with neighbours who are not understanding of the need to show co-operation, and consideration whilst living in such a close environment as units. 

Of course this is my first CTTT application, just wanting to get it right. I can’t afford the expense of sound engineers, acoustic monitering or legal advice.

Many thanks

Ms M

Hi drshelley,

The application was dismissed on the grounds that the adjudicator could not established where the truth lied. 

The respondent got a lawyer to prepare a letter threatening defamation. The respondent also canvassed other neighbours including tennants who (8 in total) wrote all manner of character assassinations about me.

Friends both in Real Estate and outside – comforted me by explaining an adjudicator would look past these petty supporting letters in submission the respondent had garnered as petty. 

Further legal consultations confirmed my belief the adjudicator would look past these and with the building level decibel documents from FLATChat demonstrating the tiled floor starts at 72Db, and the noise diary – would make a reasonable decision. 

I also sought  legal advice regarding slander, defamation and slurring my character.  It was confirmed on legal advice- to keep the focus on the issue – the impact of the flooring rather than being diverted by the attempted character assassination.

I chose not to respond to the respondent’s submission – considering it disrespectful to the adjudicator and considering the adjudicator would look past some of the more fanciful supporting allegations neighbour’s made about my character.

I had been approached by several neighbours – all owners – who were more than happy to support my claim. I warned them the importance that CTTT would be concerned with was – is it immediately affecting these people supporting my claim. If the supporters waivered in their claims then my claim could be dismissed. 

I was gobsmacked that the respondent would allow others to defame, and slur my character – all claims were not supported with times or regaling of the incident. Again, maybe I was being to logical in outlook for the claim???

I accept that the adjudicator has chosen to take into account that playing music (which ceased some 4 and a half months ago when the respondent refused mediation through Community Justice Centre) was a factor that went against me. 

I accept that the circumstances demonstrate quite strongly that lack of communication, ignorance of the Strata Scheme Management Act, Strata By-laws and just common decency to be considerate of our neighbours has resulted in my claim.

The respondent ceased communication with me in any form from 8/8/2013. The respondent had until 1/9/2013 to mediate noise from the Lot. I kept a noise diary until 6/9/2013 and as I’d had no ceasation of the noises I pursued the matter with CTTT. 

The respondent has increased noise from their Lot in recent days (the decision came in some two weeks ago to myself directly and a week ago to all owners). In addition to this I have received harassing anonymous letters in the mail, and increased junk mail.

Whilst I accept everyone is entitled to their opinion, the recent harassing letter went off the rails casting all logic out the window. 

All of these harassing behaviours fall just short of breaking the law, and I feel they are being enflamed by the recent decision.

So it is back to the drawing board for my case. I’ve found the process a baptism of fire, it has been harrowing and distressing. I found that divulging my distress and the impacts on my medical conditions was like exposing myself to trolls and hyenas as people chose to comment on my medical conditions, rather than the focussing on the complaint.

I found it incredible that in the 21st Century people’s behaviour falls just short of grabbing pitchforks and hunting me down to burn me at the stake. 

I realise – had the respondents followed through with their initial part of the Community Justice Centre agreement as well as advising of the actions they had undertaken, it may have delayed or avoided the CTTT complaint in the first place. 

It demonstrates at the end of the day the need for a mechanism to address neighbourhood issues – I would say both myself and the respondent lack the ability to adequately communicate with each other which has compounding finding a long-term resolution to the problem. 

I also learnt in the process that the licensed NSW Real Estate agent who would not communicate with us during renovations to the Lot also works in the Real Estate which manages our Strata. I also learnt the Real Estate agent has sold properties in the complex and is aware of what the property looked like prior to it being sold in the as-is for renovation. I cannot understand then WHY the current owner was NOT provided with a copy of the Strata by-laws at the time of purchase??

Other owners confirmed being provided with the Strata-bylaws is a common practise on purchasing into a Strata Scheme (again call me silly and logical – I could only draw on my previous experience purchasing into a Community Title Scheme in QLD – where these were provided as part of the sale, and I experienced that same on purchasing my unit in NSW).

I’d like to see CTTT process explain what is acceptable evidence more explicitly. I’d like to see the privacy of people’s details maintained -I got prank hang up calls once the submission went out to all owners on the Strata roll. 

How is your case going???

*not for republication*