[Flatchatty]

Thank you Jimmy.

This new AC unit affects the external appearance of the building since it is on a façade. Two other owners (not committee members), who know that the installation was unauthorised, are not happy about it, and want it removed, but they avoid to get involved since the offender is a neighbour.

Also, it is already confirmed that there was no prior approval, and the offender’s only defence is that they got verbal permission from the previous SM.

[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.

[Flatchatty]

The strata manger has now informed the committee that they are considering this letter as a formal retrospective approval application. And although the unauthorised  AC unit is on a common façade and visible form the public street, the SM has not given the option to the committee to skip retrospective action altogether.

[Flatchatty]

The strata manager circulated a “notice of work completed” letter from the offending owner. The work was completed over a month ago. The offender claims that they had verbal permission from the previous strata manager and asking for formal written authorisation. Does this make any sense?

[Flatchatty]

Jimmy-T wrote:

This is pretty basic stuff and even if your strata manager isn’t a lawyer, she should know this.

It is on an external wall (common property) in the front driveway and you can see it from the street. Not a single building in the whole street has a visible AC unit. In the Cumberland council DCP part B, it states: “Where an air conditioning unit is to be installed, the motor unit shall be located at the rear or side of the dwelling house and shall be appropriately noise attenuated and appropriately screened.”

I agree with you, this is basic stuff, owners cannot affix anything to common external walls without authorisation from the OC, and if they did then there is a breach of Strata law and by-laws. So I don’t understand the attitude of this strata manager who needs a lawyer to see that there is a breach. I thought knowing strata law and how to read legislation is a requirement to become a strata manager.

[Flatchatty]

Some more info:
The building is a 12-lot strata scheme in NSW (Cumberland council). The offending owner is a committee member that only has 3 members in total.

[Author]

Replies