[Hasbean]

What is the purpose of forcing pre 1996 schemes to adopt a set of by laws that are not the same as the standard suggested by laws? I thought pre 1996 schemes were forced by the 1996 act to adopt the standard by laws contained within. So both pre and post 1996 schemes would have similar by laws anyway.

Would adopting the schedule 2 by laws be automatic, ie not requiring a meeting at all?

Also, presumably, we could recommend to members to accept the schedule 2 by laws and then replace them with the standard suggested by laws if we could get the 75% majority required.

[Hasbean]

Thank you to those who have responded.

 

On the one hand Chris Kerin has the view that Strata is responsible on a strict liability basis and Easty has the view that there must be negligence before Strata are responsible. Jimmy T backs Chris Kerin but with an argument that does not seem to apply. I think there is a difference between the case of damage to a fixture Strata did not know about and damage caused by common property to contents.

 

My immediate response (after calling the plumber) was that I should not be out of pocket. Strata had failed to control the water that was under their control and certainly was not under mine. I call it the Tort of Mischief rather than the Tort of Negligence. But I do take Easty’s point that Strata could end up in all sorts of monetary trouble if my Tort of Mischief wins the day. The way round it, I think, would be for Strata to require all owners to have contents insurance with a reasonable excess, and for Strata to be responsible for the excess if damage was caused to contents from common property.

 

But that is a longer term solution. I’m still stuck with two completely opposite views. Do any of you have a view as to how I should proceed?

[Author]

Replies