Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Point taken about Buzzfeed, which probably wasn’t a great example, but have a look at this article from last year that explains exactly how and why a website could be sued for a derogatory review.
According to its author, you can only be sued for defamation if you identify the people allegedly defamed … but how hard would it be not to identify the committee, the chair or the strata manager – if only by inference – if you identified the apartment block.
And if you don’t identify the block, what’s the point?
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.
So are you saying in this scenario, the agent gets $250 signing fee PLUS $20 a month commission. If so, the incentive to churn is clearly there.
But that doesn’t get past the fact that a “no grounds” eviction with 14 days notice isn’t legal if it’s not backed by an NCAT order.
Talk to the Tenants Union – they may know of other cases and will be able to help
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 think David NG misunderstands. This sounds like charges for calls made and/or received . If so, whether or not it is excessive depends on a) the type of contract you have and b) the number of calls made to and by the strata manager.
There are basically two types of strata management agreement. The first, and on the face of it more expensive, is all inclusive and covers all admin costs. The secon is cheaper on the face of it but ramps up its cost through Schedule B costs, like phone calls, writing letters etc etc.
If you are a settled building with not much traffic between the owners and the strata manager a Schedule B weighted contract will save you money. If you have a lot of contact with your strata manager, an all-inclusive contract may be the way to go (provided it doesn’t limit contact).
As for excessive costs, someone should ask how many phone calls that figure represents, who they were to and what they were 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.
Andy wrote:
The website provider won’t be subject to defamation proceedings only the reviewer.
And you know this, how? Have you heard about how Buzzfeed had to pay out on defamation against Emma Husar?
Here are some facts:
There is no right to free speech enshrined in any law or in the constitution of Australia.
There is no clear legislation about how defamation works in the case of internet forums where people express their opinions.
However, we know that the defences that exist in the law include public interest and absence of malice. We also know that you can’t legally defame a business … unless your comments affect their business in a negative way.
So if someone has, say, a long-running dispute with their building manager, and then goes on the review website and accuses the building manager’s company of something that might affect their ability to get new business, do you think that business is going to sit quietly and not respond?
How likely is this? Have a look at websites like Tripadvisor where reviews are closely monitored to make sure that reviewers are not accusing hotels and restaurants of dishonesty, fraudulent behaviour or anything else that could be judged defamatory.
If a review and rating website can achieve a critical mass of traffic where attacks on it were seen as attacks on the strata community, and had enough financial backing to monitor, filter and and if necessary censor potentially defamatory material, it might get away with it. Otherwise they are walking on thin ice.
I say again, there is no legal right to free speech in Australia. There are conventions and norms that allow us to speak our minds but they are no guarantees.
And be sure of this, if a person or company feels they have been defamed, they aren’t going to after the disgruntled teenager sitting in his share house anonymously firing off abusive posts and emails. They will go after the people they can find and who might have some money in the bank – the website and the people who run it.
It’s a great idea and everything will be fine … until it isn’t. And bear in mind, if someone with deep pockets comes after you in a legal action, they can destroy you, even when you are right and they are wrong.
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.
The strata ACT says, in section 106, that the owners corp is responsible for “common property and any personal property vested in the owners corporation.”
I have to admit that I have never understood what “personal property vested in the owners corporation” i. But I would look at it this way, just for the sake of finding where to draw a line, anything that would be covered by strata insurance should be the responsibility of the OC. Anything that isn’t should be the responsibility of the lot owner.
Make no mistake, this is totally arbitrary and subject to potential challenge.
But the fact that everybody in the block is affected means that the cost is spread to some extent. OK, the person with the heavy drapes and fancy blinds will have to pay more. But would they save money if they had to pay a share of the cost of everyone trying to prove that they were paying an unfair share?
Everybody needs to get a grip and be glad the OC is doing something for the building.
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.
The strata Act is quite clear on this – levies and special levies are to be paid based on unit entitlements, unless you get an order from NCAT to the contrary.
If there is a majority feeling that the single tenant landlord has been seriously disadvantaged, there is nothing I can think of to stop the owners corp making a one-off pro-rata payment by way of restitution.
Between that and the reduced bills in the future, the landlord should be happy to pay the legislated share of the levies to have the water meters installed.
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.
Another option would be to challenge decisions at NCAT which can issue orders to overturn decisions that are not in keeping with strata law.
That said, often just a convincing threat of doing that can have the desired result.
As for what works at NCAT – the answer is, the law.
Go through decisions that have been made and see how they stack up against the Strata Schemes Management Act and Regulations.
I have also been recommending a lot of people talk to our sponsors StrataAnswers who will give you good, objective advice for a modest fee.
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 what the issue is here. Was the “budget” intended to raise the money required to complete the works? Were levies raised accordingly?
By the way, as you indicated yourself, the year referred to is the period until the next AGM, not the remainder of the calendar or financial year
And please don’t copy and paste material that shows up here with all sorts of coding, if you can avoid it.
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.
The Landlord has to go to the Tribunal to get an enforcable 14-day eviction notice, according to this extract from a Tenants Union factsheet:
Application to the Tribunal without notice
The landlord/agent can apply to the Tribunal for a termination order without giving you a termination notice on one or more of the following grounds:
- You, your guests, another occupant or their guests have caused or permitted:
- serious damage to the premises or any neighbouring property
- injury to the landlord, agent, the landlord’s/agent’s employees, or your neighbours
- use of the premises for illegal purposes.
- You or another occupant has seriously or persistently threatened or abused the landlord, agent or the landlord’s/agent’s employees.
The Tribunal may make a termination order and may order you to give immediate possession of the premises to the landlord.
So unless the landlord has been to the tribunal, the eviction order is invalid. A “no grounds” eviction requires a 30-day notice. Anything less than that has to be supported at the Tribunal, if you object to it.
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.
Question wrote:
I doubt you could sue a review site, otherwise all the big companies would be sueing every big review site …
Where do you get that idea? You’ve clearly forgotten the case from several years ago when the owner of a Sydney restaurant successfully sued the author of a review in the SMH that said his lobster was “inedible” or something like that, which the court regarded as a statement of fact rather than opinion.
Or, more recently, how about this story from the USA? Or this one, closer to home.
The reason big companies don’t sue big websites for negative reviews may be that there could be no net gain, they will probably look like bullies and it just extends the life and reach of the original complaint.
But we’re not talking about big websites and big companies. We are discussing fledgling websites that could see their entire working capital tied up in a law suit brought by an entity they have rightly or wrongly criticised.
There is no right to free speech in Australia, at least not enshrined in our constitution. And that means a negative review is subject to potential challenge in the courts with each case decided on its merits.
It would not be up to the defamed company to prove the claims were false – it would be up to the review website to prove they were true and were not motivated by malice as well as being in the public interest.
That’s a pretty high bar to reach … and probably explains why there isn’t any such website operating on a significant scale in Australia right now.
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.
It’s not just the agent who’s dodgy, the termination notice is too, if it doesn’t follow the Residential Tenancy Act.
Go to www. tenants.org and you will find factsheets explaining your rights and the rental agent’s responsibilities.
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 think you have answered your own question. The most active group in Victoria is “We Live Here” and their email address is campaign@welivehere.net. Their website is http://www.welivehere.net but it doesn’t look like it’s been updated for a while.
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 surprised to hear that. Most balconies (in NSW, at least) are common property. In your case, you could politely request that the strata committee or manager tell them to not put their gear there, or tell them you will have it removed at their expense if they do it again or charge them “rent”. It depends on how much aggro you want to cause. But if it is your property, they have no “right” to access it.
In all likelihood the strata manager or SC don’t even know they are doing this and the abseilers don’t even realise that they need permission.
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.
You can certainly tell the strata manager, committee or building manager that you don’t give permission for them to do that.
But bear this in mind – the balcony is probably not yours – it is common property to which you have exclusive access.
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.
Generally speaking, balconies are common property as are the original tiles attached to them. What has happened to other balconies is irrelevant.
The question here is whether the balcony tiles in question were damaged by a fault in common property or the actions of tenants. In the first instance the owners corp is obliged to repair or replace. In the latter case, the lot owner should be pursued for allowing common property to be damaged.
If the OC think the lot owner’s tenants were at fault and think they can prove that, I would advise them to tell the lot owner to go ahead and take them to NCAT.
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.
- You, your guests, another occupant or their guests have caused or permitted: