Current Page

[Flatchatty]

Hi VicRes,

Thank you for your input although i didn’t fully understand it.

The SM didn’t issue the letter, they received it from the offender and circulate it to the committee. When the SM was asked what is required from the committee to do with this letter, they replied with a short message that this letter is the offender’s retrospective approval application! The SM was asked again if this letter can be considered as a valid retrospective approval application that legally triggers the retrospective approval process. But they just ignored that question altogether.

My research yielded two points:

1. Under the SSMA 2015 framework, retrospective approval is a formal, procedural mechanism, not merely a notification. The “notice of work completed” is not defined in the SSMA 2015 as a valid application type. For this reason, it MAY fail to trigger the OC’s statutory obligation to initiate the retrospective approval process.
2. Even if the request is garbage and incomplete, it still has to be considered by the SM and the committee because owners have the right to request and be considered.

So what the committee should do in this case?

PS. The letter only lists the date of the work (in the past), the brand of the AC unit, the location as “Kitchen” (Not external wall/façade), the installer’s name, a note that permission was verbally given by the previous SM, and a request for written approval. It does not even acknowledge a breach or a mistake.

IMHO, and I’m not a solicitor, it seems unreasonable that a letter like this can trigger the retrospective approval process, waste time and delay action.

Quote