[philjohnk]

We had a neighbour and some still do, we have moved out, that played the saxophone EVERY Sunday afternoon, sometimes the clarinet, sometimes the piano.  This went on for a number of years, so what do you do? We chose live and let live, fortunately he wasn’t a bad player but we didn’t like jazz and that’s what he played .  You can make an enemy out of someone who just doesn’t think of their neighbour’s inconvenience or believes his musical talent is his gift to the world, or at least a number of neighbours!

Some people just don’t get it, they live in their own world and don’t think about others, sadly it’s becoming a larger percentage.

[philjohnk]

What is even worse, is when a Motion is put forward and accepted by the SM and included in the Agenda, but then the Motion is ruled “out of order” before the meeting starts.  Guess by who?  That’s right, the Solicitor brought along by the SM at the Committee’s request and the Chairman, who is also from the SM, agrees. Obviously because it is his firm’s solicitor.

So much for AGM’s to be a meeting whereat members can discuss their issues and get them resolved.  AGM’s are for Committee’s to put THEIR agenda forward and get it passed.

The member who had the Motion ruled out of order was left with the option of spending perhaps $10k to get legal advice and take the matter to NCAT, of course by the time it would have been useless, the horse had well and truly bolted. And of course the Committee would have had their legal expenses paid out of the Admin Fund.

[philjohnk]

Not being a builder I can only go on what I have heard about the defects problem.  But I strongly suspect that the privatisation of Building Inspectors who issue approval certificates or similar coincided with the downturn in quality buildings and escalated from there. More failed privatisation policies!

One assumes these new inspectors will face the wrath of ICAC if they are Public Servants and are found gilding the lily so to speak.  Let’s face it, Developers are necessary to build what needs to be built but that doesn’t mean they have to accept shoddy workmanship from their sub contractors, the winner of course is probably always the lowest bidder!

Good luck to the new system, one just has to look at Mascot Towers to see how badly the system has done in the past and feel so much for the poor buyers.  The government MUST fix that problem, a NSW Government was in charge when it happened.  For God’s sake the Federal Government just offered an apology to Thalidomide affected people for what happened forty years ago   The Government wasn’t aware enough of the problem and allowed it to continue.  So the same formula should work with Mascot Towers et al.  I do not diminish the suffering of the Thalidomide victims in anyway but I can see a parallel for government responsibility.

[philjohnk]

Well received the solicitor’s letter and what can one say, as a member of the NA I can spend $5k + to challenge the letter legally, which to my thinking it contentious and like many legal letters reaches for details not available to non legal members.  Just have to put it down to being ‘handled’ I guess!

[philjohnk]

Thanks for your reply Keymaster.  No that wasn’t it, the item was on the agenda and mailed to all members and designated as requiring a Special Resolution. It was only when the Meeting opened that the Chair via a tame solicitor gave the news about the ‘out of order’ but the meeting was so badly run we couldn’t understand what was said, too much ambient noise.  I’m still waiting on the Minutes to see what their reason was, I have asked for clarification.

[philjohnk]

Concerning the appliance, whatever it is, you would have a monumental argument with the manufacturer if the product was out of warranty surely.  Most manufacturers just wash their hands (pun intended) once the warranty period runs out. Surely that has to be taken into account in this discussion, at least you take one party out of the equation.  However if it was still in warranty when it caused the problem/damage you would need to look at the warranty provisions carefully. My guess is the manufacturer would have covered themselves for 3rd party damage.  But………?

[philjohnk]

This may get caught up in the Dividing Fences Act. I had an opposite situation wherein the Body Corporate (BC) had two goes at fixing part of a brick wall because the MS “Recommended” that it was the responsibility of the Body Corporate. The fixes didn’t work.  However four years later the BC decided that the wall was a 50/50 proposition, I think because I had challenged them on other issues in the meantime. They got legal advice which decided it was a Dividing Fence. Pretty easy when the BC is picking up the bill.  An NCAT appeal by me was dismissed and as Jimmy says in another forum, NCAT are not interested in the morality of an issue they will just look for a legal clause they can use to justify their decision.

The actions of others as they affect us , I see dividing into two area. Things that are morally questionable ( but strata legal) and things that are strata illegal.

The tribunal will not solve nor entertain the immoral behaviour ( unless it is strata illegal). If you are going to start action through the tribunal make absolutely sure which part of the act you are going to rely on.

[philjohnk]

I recently had occasion to explain to a committee member that the topic we were discussing was mentioned in detail in the Management Statement.  He then asked me if I had a spare copy because he didn’t have one!!!  It beggars belief that anyone would take on committee responsibilities without making themselves aware of those responsibilities – it ain’t that difficult!  As Jimmy advises there’s plenty of information in the Act or at Fair Trading NSW.

[Author]

Replies