[Manta]

Update on this subject.
The tenants finally admitted they did not have any of the required approvals/qualifications and have been invited close the business or vacate the premises.
They offered to “indemnify” my daughter from any liability through an insurance policy.
A potential lawyer fest IMHO.
Thanks for your advice.

[Manta]

The DA should have been scrutinised by the committee before the approval stage.
Traffic, overshadowing, issues in the geotechnical report, a dilapidation report to cover any damage including possible subsidence from the excavation if it is not supported sufficiently etc etc.
Water flows above and below ground can affect your property and should have been addressed.
Sewer access etc should all be there.
All you can do now is ensure compliance in a polite manner!

[Manta]

Tenants have always been aware that price of rent like any commodity is negotiable and have never been backward in submitting lower offers to the greedy landlord in a “normal” market. Are these the same tenants complaining now?
I don’t agree with the blatant auctioning that is reportedly happening but short of rent controls that’s how the market works.

 

[Manta]

The development application process regulates the minimum number of car spaces to be provided for resident and visitors.  Streets around unit developments are invariably clogged as the the spaces provided are always to the minimum standard with is unrealistic. Some developers want reductions in these standards on the pretence of being environmentally friendly.
Taking visitor parking for EV charging may result in a reduction in spaces available below the minimum required.

Perhaps a resident using a visitor /charging station could make their parking space available to visitors who may have an entitlement to the space.  A note on the car being charged with the location of an alternate space and the time of use wouldn’t be too hard!!!

Overnight charging in a visitor space will become a bonus parking space and impossible to police.

Charging in the residents own space is the only fair way with the cost borne by the user of the space.

[Manta]

Thanks for the info. Property has settled and new owner is making enquiries as to how the common property is managed. Mightn’t be to late to sell him a bridge!

 

[Manta]

Thanks for the info. Nothing heard from the buyer or solicitor requesting more information.

I have a bridge for sale, great harbour views, no paperwork – wonder if he will be interested?

[Manta]

Committee withdrew their letter and denied I was actually accused or threatened.

Didn’t actually get an apology but a good result.

[Manta]

A letter was sent yesterday morning advising that the gate would not be removed, there had been no attempt at mediation and I would start the proceedings at NCAT.

Committee managed to convene a meeting by lunchtime and the letter was withdrawn.

Thanks for your help.

[Manta]

Thank you for the info. I will be happy  to go to the NCAT and I don’t think it will be difficult to prove vindictive behaviour.

They haven’t provided a date when this work was done but is a “Direct contravention of Section 108 of the Strata Scheme ManagementAct 2015” . This act was not in existence in 2004 so couldn’t have been contravened anyway.
Shouldn’t be relevant anyway as it was done by the builder of the complex. Materials and current condition all the same as the rest of the fence.

The AGM is being held next week so I will be able to question the committee directly (via Zoom unfortunately). An opportunity for all the 156 owners to hear about the committees actions. The committee and maybe 5 others!

Other approach is to get their reasons in writing and go to NCAT – telling them what I really think might be counterproductive!

[Manta]

Thanks for the info.

Their wording is “a direct contravention of section 108 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015” .
They have not mentioned a date when they believe this work was done but is there retrospectivity with the act?
The previous act appears to be 1996 which would have applied  Not really relevant but may be an example of their lack of thought in starting this.
Swimming pool fencing legislation is not retrospective.

The AGM is been held on Thursday via Zoom unfortunately but I have registered to speak so will able to address these issues directly and make other owners aware of their actions. Of the 156 owners there will be a large number watching – maybe as many as 5 plus the committee!

[Manta]

The gent described himself as a “naturalist” but english not his first language  – naturist was his intention. 

He is a long term resident owner.

The council is looking at rules preserving existing use of premises  – mainly to protect live entertainment and similar venues from new neighbours.
 This is also an existing use – council will be formally advised.

His intention is to continue to enjoy his property – he currently has privacy by high fence, trees etc but can’t protect against a 4 story building.

Should be interesting to see how it pans out.

[Author]

Replies