[justsaying]

yes that true, Jimmy. naively I didn’t think the by law was contentious. The GM only had a few items on it, and only one by law that was legally planning to change something that numerous other owners do in breech of  by laws. Owners are disinterested even when levies escalate! They simply avoid OC unless they want something personal.  What a minefield Strata is, bullies control and squash those who try and abide by the law! SM trying to dodge the responsibility of the vote, after declaration ! 😩

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was only when I saw

[justsaying]

thanks very much for your reply, kaindub. I have requested all “paperwork “ and the strata roll. It appears one owner (not on the SC) is controlling the communication resident system and acts as a sensor to stop some residents commenting! That same owner gathers proxies to ensure he keeps control . Hard  to believe this behaviour is tolerated but probably due to lack of interest throughout the scheme.

thank you

[justsaying]

Hi Jimmy

the original covering was approved  by OC in 2008 for all properties.

However I cant find a by law for it.. I didn’t install it at the time  so its a new installation. As itis my only fresh air is via doors not windows and when it rain it enters it the interiors of the apartment. Naturally I want to protect my interiors especially as its just been renovated.

I would be happy to comply with the new bylaw if it included weather protection not just shade cover. The strata manager told me I cant put anything else up..period!

It seems like I need to find a solicitor to write a special privilege by law .

thanks for the additional information. I didn’t think of the sustainability aspect.

[justsaying]

Jimmyt said:

NCAT is designed to be a low-cost option that doesn’t need legal representation. That’s why both sides have to apply for permission to use lawyers.

 

thats a very interesting comment. I have never had to to apply to NCAT for permission and I dont  believe the OC has either. 

My posts are generally submitted on behalf of other people who dont have the resources or ability to use this forum. I appreciate the ability to have an open discussion and to take advice when necessary. Thank you 

[justsaying]

Thanks, interesting comments and quite depressing! I agree most people dont care….until it impacts on them, then its different! It confirms my opinion and clarifies why so many find strata living is  becoming such a hostile environment . I think when the Strata Act was implemented there wasnt enough thought into the way one is compromished unless one accepts that cowboys rule the day. Most law abiding owners are horrified that common law is thrown out the window in Strata.  Mortified if one dares to speak out and be branded a pain the backside” or worse!!  To find oneself having to knock on doors to get support with the knowledge that the EC Secretary has all owners details at their fingertips and usually has already canvessed for votes

To challenge this particular act is largely untested and given the threat of having  to pay OC costs if you challenge  NCAT decisions its easy to understand reluctance to persue these hellish and vindictive EC’s. There is no lobbying to amend the law to improve this area its all about developers, selling off etc etc. there is no legal aid available as in other sections of law. For those curious, in NSW lawyers charge you for them to call you @ $88.00 per hour plus the costs  of around $5000.00 for a simple case with no certainty of a positive result. 

Apologises  to those wonderful schemes who do act with integrity , respect and transparency you are the diamonds in the rough! 

[justsaying]

Hmmm…. Seekshelp, it Seems to me the OC objection is hardly valid, as traditionally owners are permitted to make changes to their lot by supplying the by law to accept  responsibility to its maintenance. You have stated other by laws were approved so there appears to be involved for OC to object so strongly? 

Its my experience that some owners can be discriminated against a OC driven by self interests and with the ability to contact owners directly to obtain support

In  my opinion you have no choice IF you want the by law approved to return to adjudication and ask for a penalty. It might cost you but a GOOD strata lawyer can help smooth the waters good luck.

[justsaying]

Thats very interesting ! Yet again you have the answers! Thanks very much

[justsaying]

Thanks Jimmy.

I have read the SCA but again there are a lot of so called” grey areas” . Ask the SM and they dodge  questions because they are not lawyers, although one was heard to recommend to OC not to pass a by law with amendments agreed to…i.e incorrect spelling. NCAT suggested this was a good compromise in order to find a resolution for all concerned.

Yes i understand the difference. My understanding is that common areas that have exclusive use for one lot owner belng to OC as part of the strata plan. Maintenance refers to who has the ongoing maintenance of a lot.

A change that requires a by law on the common area i.e. still remains as common area pertaining to that lot. However  the  change in the by law where the owner undertakes maintenance and repair of the changed surface  ( tiles/ pavers etc) that by law does not include change of ownership to owner as the undersurface still remains part of the OC property…i.e balcony structure, drainage etc.? 

the lawyers involved…. Both leading strata lawyers! One, I suspect , who thrives on ongoing litigation! 

what chance do we have? Going to NCAT? That is one flip of a coin where not everyone is a lawyer and often miss the critical and supplementary evidence.

Thanks so much for your continued advice

[justsaying]

Well that was interesting! Its certainly a numbers game! My scheme  now supports a committee filled with non compliance Owners! The usual ECM is  7 but she who rides a broomstick managed to get the ” right” owners to speak and loudly boast that 7 is unworkable and 5 is a better number…so not only do we have a poor example of good people on the EC  with their own self interests , it also limits any objection to their antics at a meeting!

[justsaying]

Thanks for your replies! Caution noted! I have now been legally advised to go back to NCAT seeking orders that the OC wont approve a by law and that their refusal was unreasonable. 

 I have seen a program where a Sydney owner had problems getting work attended to and after the program  where the ECM was shamed, that OC fixed it immediately.! 

[justsaying]

Seekshelp said  the by law is just for my lot and the works do not impact any other lot owner. The works have not been made and the by law is getting the pre approval

 

I think i would question why the OC chose to ingore the order? Are the OC usually receptive to owners  wanting to change/add a by law? Does seekshelp  have an answer in writing as to the basis of the rejection following the meeting? In NSW one has the option of going to the Supreme Court ,however all should be resolved by an honest transparent OC before costly legal fees! 

[justsaying]

@SeeksHelp said:
I have won an order that the owners corporation was unreasonable in refusing to make a by law. The OC has not appealed the decision.  I have been to the AGM again and the owners corporation are ignoring NCAT order and still refusing to make the by law.

Does anyone have any experience in this area of appealing to the NSW Fair Trading and what happened?

Does appealing to Fair Trading give the OC the opportunity to appeal again?  

Can you provide more information? Eg can  your order impact on other owners? Etc etc. I understand that the option is to go to the  NCAT ombudsman to seek assistance 

[justsaying]

Thanks Whale for your advice. The motion did go ahead…as often happens the meeting was stacked with proxies and people who appear not to understand strata living and obligations. After i explained the act and the ramifications …the comment was oh, more legal fees, bring it on!

appreciate your swift assistance thanks so much

[justsaying]

Thanks whale…gosh! By paper votes i refer to written voting at GM. We are struggling to get numbers to remove the EC…four in breach. I think it sets a poor example for owners. I will take all advice and vote only for unblemished folk! 

[justsaying]

I have just been advised by the SM  that  as the caretaker (building manager) doesn’t have a office on site  (40a) then the EC can appoint him

If he has an office onsite then (40B) applies ?

Can this be true?

AGM tonight

[Author]

Replies