- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
Earlier this year, NCAT made an order to have a new lift installed in my building by a certain date. This did not happen. In other words, the order had not been complied with.
At a recent tribunal hearing to renew proceedings, the Tribunal member made no orders against the Owners Corporation and has now allowed another 2 months for the lift to be fully completed and certified.
That means, four months will have expired since the original order was made to have the lift fully completed.
Why on earth do we bother with NCAT? What a useless organisation it is. In addition, the member had a very poor knowledge of how strata works.
-
Replies
-
Is it unreasonable to assume that a strata committee that ignores problems with the lift fot three years, then delays installation of as long as they can, might have chosen the cheapest rather than the best option when finally forced to do something.
Is it also unreasonable to assume that they wouldn’t be falling over themselves to get the lift company there to fix it, pronto.
This isn’t a one-off and the strata committee has demonstrated a long-standing pattern of not giving a dam about the residents. THAT is what the member should have been looking at and it’s why he or she should have used their dicretion to send the cureent SC packing and call for a new committee to be elected.
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.
Is it also unreasonable to assume that they wouldn’t be falling over themselves to get the lift company there to fix it, pronto.
On that point alone, I’d have to say yes it probably is unreasonable to make that assumption. Why wouldn’t any SM or SC call the lift company if it’s a no cost to them warranty issue? There’s likely to be a lift service contract in place too. So cost shouldn’t be a factor in their decision.
So I’d think some evidence of the SC’s or SM’s neglect on that point would need to be presented to a Tribunal. Not great for the OP, especially considering all their previous issues with the SC, but it seems to be the way Tribunals and Courts work.Perhaps the OP did present that evidence?
Austman said:
Why wouldn’t any SM or SC call the lift company if it’s a no cost to them warranty issue?
Perhaps because they don’t live in the building, they resented having to fix the lift and maybe even take some malicious pleasure in the fact that the lift that they fought so hard for so long not to have to pay for is still causing problems.
Speculation, I know, but beyond the bounds of probability?
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.