- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Jimmy, you have pointed out quite a few times lately that Executive Committees don't have to and can't be made to enforce by-laws in NSW unless they involve maintaining Common Property.
What's your game?
If it's trying to get the Strata Titles Act to change, is this a good way of going about it, do you reckon?
Surely Executive Committees must have to get involved where miscreant and anti-social residents, almost literally, make life unliveable for everyone else, don't they? Or such travesties are allowed to take place such as in 'Treasurer bought a Common Property'.
-
Replies
-
Ah, Urban, you've picked my 'game'. I can see where you're going with this but the fatal flaw is in your phrase ” … surely Executive Committees must have to get involved…” Well, yes, they should and they often do but for whatever reason, way too many choose not to.
As a long-time denizen of this corner of the web, you must surely remember the drummer boy in the garage who drove the neighbour to distraction. How about the woman who couldn't get residents to stop parking on common property, blocking access to her garage, because members of the EC liked to be able to park on common property too? And then there were the residents hounded by their neighbours because they dared to complain about children playing noisily on common property outside their window (which was a clear breach of at least two of the scheme's by-laws).
In all the above cases the EC took the Pontius Pilate option and said “sort it out amongst yourselves” … as they could because there is no obligation to even respond to complaints, let alone pursue them.
The one bright spot in this is that any strata resident – owner or tenant – can apply to Fair Trading and then the CTTT for mediation or adjudication. The question is, why should they have to go out on a limb to enforce what are, after all, agreed community standards? Are we communities or just a bunch of individuals playing the “I'm all right, Jack” card … until someone plays it against us
At least in the case of the Treasurer buying the common property, they probably thought the deal was kosher because they fulfilled all the requirements of basic strata meeting regulations. But in this as in all other things, there is a higher law than the Strata Act and (thank heavens) a higher court than the CTTT.
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.
I dont know if you are taking me too literally or not but I think my objection to the lack of compulsion to enforce by-laws is pretty clear if you look HERE. But, hey, I shouldn't assume that everyone has read everything I write – that would be the height of arrogance.
The enforcement of by-laws is so arbitrary that if I was ever pinged for some minor infraction (not that I ever do anything wrong … EVER) I would just claim it was victimisation because I'm sure I could quickly list half a dozen more serious issues that had gone unaddressed.
Also, this was one of my submissions to the recent online forum on Strata Law reform:
Make the enforcement of by-laws obligatory rather than optional (after giving everyone a chance to adopt a new set of by-laws if the current ones don’t quite fit). Optional enforcement leads to confusion and unnecessary conflict in strata developments. People buy into buildings expecting the rules in the by-laws to be in force – that should not be at the whim of the ruling executive committee. It would help a great deal if the CTTT would adjudicate on the simple question of whether or not a by-law has been breached – not whether or not that member thinks it’s a good by-law. OCs can change by-laws if the majority don’t like them but there should be a one-off opportunity to adopt model by-laws (plus local variations) before the compulsory by-laws are brought in.
I think my position on that is pretty clear. It works in other States so there's not reason it can't work here.
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.
And so the saga continues …… a south coast strata manager produces a monthly newsletter for all owners on its books …….the newsletter has a Q&A section and its latest newsletter cites:
‘Q. Are owners’ corporations obliged to enforce their by-laws?
A. Not in NSW but they are in VIC and QLD.’
All sorts of scenarios can be imagined or are in effect real.
Has the relevant Minister been lobbied?
In regard to the statement that the EC does not have to make sure that the by-laws are complied with:
What is the situation where an EC has informed the strata manager to get in touch with an Owner who is violating a current by-law and to see that the by-law is carried out. This directive is in the minutes of a recent ECM.
It is now some months later and the directive has not been carried out and the strata manager is trying to be a nice guy on their own and trying to come to a compromise between the Owner and the strata manager, who is supposed to be acting on the OC behalf. The strata manager has advised an inexperienced EC as this is the way to go. I must repeat that the minutes of the EC instructed the strata manager previously to see that the by-law was carried out
The strata manager informed a recent ECM that they were waiting for an opinion from a third party tradesman on the issue.
What does a tradesman’s opinion have to do with carrying out a directive from the EC to have the Owner comply with a by-law that other Owners have been compiling with?
We can’t comment on the tradesman issue without further explanation. However, if a motion was passed at a properly constituted meeting of the executive committee to issue a Notice To Comply with a by-law, then the strata manager should have done that. If they haven’t, they need to explain why not. But if there was just a semi-informal request to the SM to chase an issue up, they may have felt a less aggressive approach was appropriate.
If the SM is refusing to comply with a reasonable instruction, you have a problem. Either way, it’s time for a “please explain” meeting.
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.