- This topic has 7 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi flatchatters
I’ve had a request in for repairs to the timber windows that are on a common property wall of my living room for 18 months now. The timber has rotted away, presumably from water damage over years. it’s common knowledge in the building these windows have issues
After getting nowhere with the SC and strata manager, I put up a motion at the most recent AGM for the repair and replacement of the damaged timber windows, which passed.
regardless the SC is still refusing to do anything, and I progressed it to mediation, which failed. Now they are claiming there is a lack of clarity around what has caused the water damage and that it could be coming from the balcony which is lot property. And that it’s up to me to prove to them what the cause is. They refuse to carry out any assessment or send an engineer, and I’ve given multiple quotes etc. It’s clear to anyone that the windows have reached the end of their natural life and the balcony is not the primary cause as the carpet gets wet under the windows when it rains not by the balcony door.
I’ve been told my only option now is NCAT but obtaining expert evidence is very costly.
How can the SC get away with ignoring resolutions that passed at an AGM? I thought they are required to follow these and where there is a disagreement between the SC and the OC, the OC view prevails ?
-
Replies
-
I thought they are required to follow these and where there is a disagreement between the SC and the OC, the OC view prevails ?
Have a look at Section 232(2) of the Act. It provides grounds for seeking order for demanding the scheme fulfils its duties. If you have already attempted mediation, you can proceed to NCAT.
And yes, the SC is required to follow the instraction of the OC. Also, in this case, I suspect the scheme is required to fix the windows then, if need be, establish later who is responsible for the cost.
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 thought they are required to follow these and where there is a disagreement between the SC and the OC, the OC view prevails ?
Have a look at Section 232(2) of the Act. It provides grounds for seeking order for demanding the scheme fulfils its duties. If you have already attempted mediation, you can proceed to NCAT.
And yes, the SC is required to follow the instruction of the OC. Also, in this case, I suspect the scheme is required to fix the windows then, if need be, establish later who is responsible for the cost.
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.
why would the SC follow any resolutions if there are no ramifications when they don’t follow them …
The ramifications could and probably should be that the owners call an EGM, sack the committee and elect a new one.
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’m not sure whether applying for another order under s232 would require less evidence? For example on the basis that a resolution was passed but that the SC (as opposed to the OC) is refusing to action that resolution.
I would think that failure to follow the instructions of the OC was all the proof that you needed of failure to fulfil a function, which is what 232 is all about.
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.
Dont relay too much on NCAT – they are sometimes clueless, or give out too general information. You do need to prove the basic facts. But the strata plan should show the wall having the window is common property, as is the window itself. The Owners Corporation has a strict duty to maintain, and repair, and replace its common property. You can represent yourself at NCAT, and if you can put together a good case, such as with photos etc, with copies of quotes for repair, NCAT should rule in your favour. The strata committee is not likely to contest this, as their case is very very weak.