[Jimmy-T]

This is exactly the grey area I've been talking about.  If someone informally approaches the EC  (because they are scared) and the EC confirms that there is an issue, then they can take action without having to identify the complainant.  The identity of the original complainant is irrelevant once you've established that there is a genuine problem. And I realise I may be contradicting myself here (that's why it's a grey area) but there's a difference between that and someone on the EC saying there's been a complaint when quite clearly they are using this to intimidate and harrass.  How do you tell the difference? Basically, it's whether there's really a problem or not.  The issue with the car a quite clearly a breach of some by-law or another and if the EC isn't prepared to back this owner, they should get off the committee and let someone with a spine take over.  But then that should apply to people running Fair Trading and the CTTT.  But the same kind of thing happens in houses.  Friends of mine live near a house with a barking dog.  When neighbours complained the dog had to be removed.  Now the dog owners deliberately leave a door open so it will bang all night in the breeze.  It's not strata that's the problem – it's selfish antisocial scumbags.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

I hear you.  I just had this flash of genius – how about Strata Cops? It would be a mixture of private eyes and security who come in, install listening devices, cameras and monitors then present the evidence to the CTTT on behalf of the owners. I'm serious! Everything from overcrowded units and illegal short term lets to barking dogs, noisy floors, illegal parking and constant parties. Even better if you can find a way to charge this back to the culprits.  Hmmm … must go and trademark the name StrataCops.

Jimmy

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.

[Jimmy-T]

I totally sympathise with this point of view and there has to be a happy medium. All the antisocial activity described here is criminal and at some point probably the police should be brought in before it gets out of hand. The fact remains that there are people at the extremes of both sides of the story – bullying residents and EC members. But there is one grey area that allows anonymity to be used judiciously … and that’s if nobody complains. The original letter writer on this topic is being hounded out of his home because he dared to stand up for another resident who was the subject of a spate of “anonymous” complaints. But as long as everyone act with good intentions that we can work with and around the laws.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Sounds like it to me. If the OC didn’t get a defects claim through in time then they (i.e. you and all your neighbours) have to accept responsibility for everything that needs to be fixed.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

At the risk of sounding obvious, if the leak was caused by a fault in common property, then it should be repaired by toe Owners Corporation.  (This is the most likely possibility).  However, if say the owner or a previous owner has replaced tiles without permission or in some other way damaged the mebrane or seal, then the repair should be done by the  owner.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

I work on a very rough rule of thumb of annual levies being 1% of the value of the unit plus or minus, say, 0.3%, based the number of facilities the OC has to maintain divided by the number of units. For instance, hotel conversions often have lots of lifts and fewer units, compared to, say, purpose-built apartments, meaning the cost of maintenance per owner (or unit entitlement, if you want to get technical) will be higher. Buildings with no lifts or swimming pools, building managers or secure parking will be cheaper to run. But then they won’t have a swimming pool, building manager or secure garages. Just remember that any new building that offers “resort” facilities with all the bells and whistles as well as low levies is probably a con.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

If we get a definitive ruling on this chimney question, it should be known as the Santa Clause. Ho ho ho.

My immeditate response is, yes the OC should pay for the chimney being swept (unless somethere on the strata plan it says it's not common property).  But you should have got approval first so you may end up paying – unless you can show it was a genuine emergency (like a fire risk).  Making sure Santa can get down the chimney is probably not an emergency (well, not for a couple of weeks, anyway.)

JimmyT

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.

[Jimmy-T]

If this member self-nominates and they are the co-owner of an apartment, they may be in breach (which would be the easiest solution) and can be dropped from the EC. Failing that, you can hold an extraordinary general meeting and, if you can get 75 percent of the vote, have them removed from the committee.

Or you could propose a motion at the next EC meeting, listing this guy’s known breaches and asking the Executive Committee to ask him to resign. This will have no immediate effect if he declines but at least it will be on the record and will be open for discussion at your next AGM. Just be careful that you don’t make this too personal – stick to what’s already on the record.

Or you could quietly let this person know that there are moves afoot to remove him and persuade him it’s in everyone’s best interest if he goes quietly before any of this becomes a matter of record.

Best of luck with it.

JimmyT

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.

[Jimmy-T]

No sooner said than done – welcome to the Strata Virgins thread. And don't give up on strata – we never hear from the people who are happy – why would we?  And the rest of us are trying to make it work.  Hang in there!

JimmyT

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.

[Jimmy-T]

Sounds like your former EC member is on a revenge trip. The Owners Corporation (all owners) is liable for any damage caused by faulty common property so, for instance, you might have to pay the excess on the owner's insurance.  If the car insurer want's more, they'll ask for it.  As far as personal liability goes, your EC should have insurance, just in case you make a mistake.  If you don't, get some. 

Personal liability only comes into it when you have been told there is a problem and have chosen to wilfully ignore it even though you knew it might impact on owners, residents or anyone else associated with the building. That could be construed as wilfull negligence whioch probably wouldn't be covered by your insurance.

In other words, unless you knew this was going to happen to the ex-EC member's car, you're probably covered … and it spunds like you are well shot of this bully.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

OK, lawyers, don’t all rush to nominate yourselves – unless you’re offering a free consultation and/or a fixed rate. Otherwise, if anyone out there recommends anyone who fits the bill, please let us know.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

I agree with most of this – the problem arises with the initial complaint in writing. Can that really be kept confidential? I totally understand why you would want to do that in certain cases but is it legal?
Interestingly, in Victoria the Executive Committee has to respond to every complaint, even if it is only a letter explaining why they aren’t taking it any further. And they have to set up a disputes and mediation procedure – that’s what you get when laws are written by people who spend all day in committees.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

The question here is whether or not having communal air conditioning repaired and maintained is more expensive than having individual units. 75 percent of owners will have to approve this change so it’s not something that will pass on a whim. If the motion fails, the Owners Corporation (and that includes you) will have to pay to have the air-con repaired. But if that’s what you really want, make sure you have organised enough votes to reject the motion at the AGM.

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.

[Jimmy-T]

The CTTT's adjudicators have a specific power that allows them to correct levies when they have clearly been skewed to favour one owner, usually either the develepors themselves or purchasers of large apartments or commercial areas whom they are trying to lure to the building.

The cheapest way to go about this is to get unanimous agreement from all owners to re-allocate unit entitlements.  But seriously, that's never going to happen. Instead you need to consult a specialist strata surveyor with a track record in this area who knows exactly what need to be done to present a compelling case to the CTTT. I'm not sure but I think I remember reading somewhere that in some cases the CTTT can order the developer to refund the Owners Corporation all the money they failed to pay.

Unless the difference is miniscule, it's worth it and the success rates for the best companies are incredibly high, so go for 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.

[Jimmy-T]

Here's a radical thought – there is no such thing as “private” correspondence within a strata plan. As an owner you are entitled to see any correspondence to or from the Executive Committee unless there is a very, very good reason for not doing so.

In other words, if an owner or resident has written to your committee in relation to how any other resident or owner is behaving within the strata, you can ask to inspect the correspondence.  If the strata manager says it was a phone call, you are entitled to ask who the phone call was from and what the response was.  If the strata manager or executive committee refuses to provide that information or show the content of the correspondence, then I would say you are entitled to say there is no such correspondence and ignore the warnings based on them.

Executive committees can't issue warnings without holding a meeting to ascertain whether or not there is a problem.  In your case, the fact that the complaints haven't been minuted in
meetings means they effectively don't exist and I would treat them
accordingly.

Strata managers who have been delegated the powers of the EC have to show the process of complaints and how they responded if they are challenged on these matters in court or at the CTTT.

There are situations where the EC and the strata manager might want to use their discretion such as when one resident is justifiably scared of their neighbours but there are ways round that.  But using anonymous complaints as the basis for threats against owners is a form of personal harrassment verging on bullying.

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.

[Author]

Replies