[mac]

In the case of the SC approving a motion to forgive the levies, did the Treasurer declare her pecuniary interest?  Did she refrain from voting?

[mac]

I have since been able to talk to Fair Trading.  They advise the lift is a mechanical device and as such is exempted from being residential building work – no HBCF.

I understand the 3 storey rule only applies to new developments not renovations – according to the Fair Trading web site

 

Cheers

[mac]

@JimmyT said:
Just to make sure everything is as it should be, did the Notice to Comply (NTC) come on THIS FORM. If not, it is meaningless.  Also, did it come from the secretary of the EC, in which case there should have been an EC meeting that discussed the breach and minuted the result.  Again, no meeting or minute, no problem.

If you feel you are being discriminated against, you could take a counter–claim against the Owners Corporation at Fair Trading in which you ask the Owners Corp to grant permission restrospectively or issue NTCs  to all owners for their shelves, pictures and mirrors.

You will be able to present this argument at a mediation where, at least, you will be able to get to the bottom of why this is happening.  Use THIS FORM to apply.

The application will cost you $78 (unless you are over 60 or a pensioner, in which case it’s $10).

Or you could let them take you to the CTTT to have a penalty applied – this costs you nothing except your time.  The CTTT will bounce the NTC if all the paperwork isn’t correct, could impose a minimal fine, if any, and may in fact decide the NTC is discriminatory and reject it on those grounds.

But let’s assume there was an EC meeting and a decision to issue the NTC, or your strata manager was using delegated powers.

In that situation I would write them a note telling them that you believe the notice is discriminatory and why and that you are happy for them to take the matter to the CTTT where an independent arbiter can decide on a penalty, if any. 

By the way, I’m not advocating free-range nailing and drilling of common property walls but once it has been done, and disaster hasn’t befallen the building, I would wonder why anyone would care.

If this is becoming a problem throughout the scheme, what your building needs is a sensible by-law that allows people to do that kind of work but bear the full consequences if they don’t use a licensed builder, or do it badly and common property or other owners’ personal property is damaged.  

Persecuting individuals is not the best way to look after common property.

Jimmy,  Thanks so much for your detailed response I really appreciate your time and expertise.

I have spoken to the Strata Manager who advises this is a notice of a breach of by law and a request to comply.  If I don’t comply the SM will refer it to the EC for them to request a formal NTC.  Then your process can  kick in.

Like in real life it would be so much easier if owners talked to each other before firing bullets!!

I will be proposing a by law similar to your suggestion at our next EGM/AGM

Thanks again

 

 

[mac]

@just get on with it said:
In short the answer is yes, the by-laws should be enforced evenly. The examples you cite though include a wide variety of issues and I would assume different levels of severity so it’s hard to say what issues may be more important than others to the committee.

Also, can you be sure that the other 7 residents have not received breach letters as well?

Thanks for your answer.

I agree there is a wide variety of items quoted related to the by law.  I can also imagine the relative severity of an item may be a reason for approval to be given or withheld once an approval has been requested by an owner to the owners corporation.

In all these cases there has been no request for approval made to the owners corporation and therefore I believe we are all in breach of the by law.  In that case I would expect all owners to be treated similarly

Yes, I am sure no other breach notices have been issued.

 

[mac]

@JimmyT said:
Interesting.  If the notice tells you to comply with a by-law that says you shouldn’t put nails in common property, then to comply surely all you have to do is not put in any more nails. Or does it say something else (or am I being dumber than usual)?

The notice requires me to remove the screws and the shelf they support.  Of course I can do that.

My issue is that I feel I am being discriminated against when other owners have also breached the bylaw but have not been served a breach notice.

There is absolutely no history of any approvals having been given in relation to this by law in the life of the strata plan

 

 

[Author]

Replies