- This topic has 7 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Is there any obligation for the EC to acknowledge or respond to owner’s correspondence or request concerning by-law compliance?
I am an owner in a Strata Plan with a seriously long term “closed shop” E.C. supported by a poor Strata Manager and a Building Manager on clover.
I have not been unable to get any acknowledgement or responses to any correspondence since 2008 and seldom receive any EC Minutes.
How do I elicit a response from the EC?
From 2008 – 2010 I had repeated and futilely requested that the EC make the owner above our unit comply with our by laws concerning their Noise penetrating our unit from the un-sound attenuated timber floating floor they installed. This flooring seemed to amplify their steps, voices, children crying and running and nearly every activity of theirs could be heard in our unit.
This occurred while I was bed bound recovering from complications from cancer treatment. I provided the EC with a letter from my specialist which was also ignored.
Fortunately the noises from above may be resolved. The owners in 2013 leased the unit and I advised their rental Managing Agent of the noise problem, virtually nearly all the noises ceased and what was left of my sanity restored. I sense the EC and Strata Manager regard me as a complainer and now a persona non grata.
While overseas we sent the following email worded in such a manner as we anticipated no response and we needed permission for a little dog to live with us. The little dog needed a permanent home urgently as her owner has a terminal condition and was fretting over the future care of her little dog.
Our email 14/10/2014
Dear Committee Members,
We are aware of quite a number of dogs already living in both Block A and B buildings and we wish to ascertain if the Executive Committee would have any objections to us bringing a quiet small and well trained dog to reside with us in unit …?
We are well aware and support the Strata by-laws and in the past have responsibly owned and trained our dogs. We will ensure this dog will be quieter than many of the buildings’ residents and make sure its behavior will at all times comply with all the appropriate by-laws and respect all the common property.
There is a need for some urgency for us being able to confirm that this little dog will have a permanent home; should we have no objection from the EC by the beginning of December considering this is a busy time of the year, we will assume there is no objection.
Yours Sincerely
………
12/11/2014
We are now home and have been able to check the by-laws and find written permission is required to have a pet. We have written again asking for approval in writing and explaining the urgency but do not expect a response.
How can we motivate our EC to respond in writing to our request?
I hope the Brains’ Trust can come up with something for us.
-
Replies
-
I have been through as similar situation and given the EC’s laxity the old proverb “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” applies. I would just go ahead and keep the dog and they probably wouldn’t know/ care.
I am going to go out on a limb here, but Jimmy and Whale feel free to stomp on me. I don’t usually give this sort of advice.
It sounds like your EC are hopeless and do nothing. That is a whole separate issue.
I would just move the dog in – I don’t think the EC will do anything, and if they do, then they are going to have to explain to all the other owners why their dogs have to go also.
I am sorry about your friend and am sure her (his?) dog will be happy with you, you are very kind to take it in.
Thumbs up from me too!
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
In the ACT, perhaps also where you are, the legislation requires a person to seek permission to keep an animal, but permission cannot be unreasonably refused. If you have the evidence of having tried to seek permission, I would think you are covered.
Considering Peter’s response, your by-laws probably also have the “permission must not be unreasonably refused” qualifier.
If so, failure to respond to a written request and any subsequent refusal on any other grounds than the dog had proved to be a nuisance would probably fall over on that count alone.
Send the EC a registered letter telling them that you intend to move the dog previously described in letters to them, into the unit. That way they can’t say they didn’t know. Then just do it.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Flanet – I agree with Scotty and Jimmy, but as a failure by the Executive Committee (E/C) to respond to your 14/10 request may not be regarded as a refusal, I just thought of another approach that may motivate them, albeit a bit more heavy handed.
That’s where if an E/C (acting for the Owners Corporation) fails to “exercise a function” such as making a decision on your request after 2 months, then an Order may be sought under Sect 138 of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act for an Adjudicator to make that decision for them.
So perhaps let the E/C know that you intend to apply for those Orders on 14/12/14 (2 months after your last letter re the dog); that may motivate them to at least make a decision and place you in a stronger position if, as Jimmy suggested, your Plan’s Pet By-Law incorporates that reasonableness provision.