[relaxedchairman]

The following posting, from someone purporting to be from the building concerned, is so seriously flawed that I was tempted to bin it.  For a start, I am not convinced that it is the same building as referred to in the original posting, not least because this person repeatedly lists factual “errors”!  He then goes on to make the usual noises about not checking our facts – how exactly are we supposed to do that for every post we get?  That’s why the website’s posters are anonymous.

The posting also makes vague threats of legal consequences (while making a few fairly slanderous comments himself) and proceeds to indirectly identify the building of which he is chair.  Finally, he accuses us of homophobia, because I used the phrase “scare them straight”.

I don’t know why I am allowing this to take up space on the website but in the interest of balance, here it is, edited and with my comments where necessary.  – JimmyT

I refer to the article “spa on balcony” which has been addressed in flatchat on the 9th and 12th October 2013, and would like to explain a few of the circumstances and make some corrections in seaspray’s somewhat fictitious and histrionic complaint on behalf of her serial complaining husband. Facts should be checked and responses in forum filtered more carefully as some legal issues could arise from your articles.

I cannot address all the issues now as a process of mediation is underway, contrary to the lack of action by the owners corporation committee suggested in your articles. It was the complainer who delayed the meeting from last week to next week, possibly to get his complaints in print via hiding behind his wife.   

However:

1. The spa owner is an owner occupier not a tenant. [Makes no difference – they still have to abide by the rules of the building as well as noise laws.]
2. The spa is on a terrace, NOT a balcony. There are NO balconies at the building.  The spa owner (which your article gave the rather simpering name spa-boy: thankfully he loves it!) was contacted by the builder/developer well into construction and they offered him the choice of a large north and east facing terrace of 102.6 sq m, which he readily accepted and paid heavily for. This was well after the apartments had all been sold off the plan so, to begin with, envy may well be a contributing factor here. This would help explain the 7 other complaints he has made regarding almost any and every innocuous activity performed by ‘spa boy’ on the terrace.
   
3. Apart from his adjoining neighbour who shares a small part of similar external terrace … Also, it must be noted that the only way to see down onto the terrace and the spa – in my case courtyards below – is by exciting the apartment, going to the outer glass level and peer down with intent, possibly on tip-toes.
4. A full written engineers report was obtained from the building engineers in July 2012, and a comment made “if you want to park 4 SUV’s up there you could” (no plans for this at this point.) I hope this allays forum contributors concerns of imminent collapse.
5. Owners corporation permission was obtained from the former corporation manager in July 2012. SpaBoy has had many talks with local council, who consider spas to rest in the same category as outdoor furniture; with restrictions and permits applicable for safety around water regulations: all of which is in process.
   
6. As Chairman of the building I am delighted to have been invited into the spa exactly two times in its 3 week history, hardly a regular offender. I look forward to many more invitations after a hard day or a workout at the gym downstairs – which the complainer uses every day, but paradoxically, has also lodged numerous formal complaints about. I deeply resent the implied accusation that my role as Chairman is somehow compromised by my neighbourly friendship with SpaBoy: this is just not true. [Really? ].
7. The articles in Flat Chat 12/10/2013, and 09/07/2013 and some of the forum responses contain syntax that could easily be inferred as homophobic. This  is of very serious legal concern ( eg “print this out and hand it to them – it might scare them straight”; “the guy is only using it as a sex aid” (I jealously confirm that he needs NO help in this department); “he figures a bit of champagne, some hot jets on their delicate muscles…..”shudder”…”). Is this the 21st century? [They ‘could be inferred’ that way by someone who was trying to distort the argument. “Scared Straight’ was a documentary about young offenders given a taste of prison life which would be their next step if they didn’t get back on the straight and narrow.  It didn’t mention sexuality, homo or otherwise.]
8. If Spending approximately 20 hours per week pro gratis on liaising with electricians, owners corporation manager, engineers, plumbers, firemen at 4.30am, gym owners, other owner occupiers, police, the fielding and responding to 40-80 emails per week regarding OC business is the definition of “relaxed”, I would be fascinated to be informed what the the definition of ‘un relaxed’ or ‘busy’ is? Perhaps your term “relaxed chairman” may have been used as meaning “chemically assisted relaxation” and on that charge I am entirely guilty, being grand final day on my second spa attendance (a daytime party that spa boy held, and for which he gave all residents and OC notification 4 days in advance). Perhaps the complainer objected to the beverage Champagne (French, the appellation contrôlée need not get involved) as somewhat sybaritic in preference to the more traditional beer for this Melbourne event. 
9. As stated the complainer has made several other formal complaints about the spa owners terrace, even involving projects he suspects “may” be planned for the future. These could be interpreted as vexatious, yet the spa owner has promptly (and at some expense) complied with every complaint, no matter how petty (eg the possibility of owning unregistered pets), immediately. It should be noted that not one other complaint either above or below or side by side has been made against the spa owner regarding the current issue or any other. 
10. Also, it should be stated that if you look carefully at body corporate rules, you can find something that almost everyone in some way breaches. In the case of the serial complainer, drying washing can be seen clearly in his Lot from street level, all day, every day – this is in breach of owner’s corporation rule 4.5d & e: “Appearance of Lots and Common Property”. Also, a tenant has lodged a formal complaint about the serial complainer’s unrestrained and yapping dog on common property, which breaches “Pets and animals” by rule 12.1 and 12.3. Ye who is without guilt etc… 
11. ‘Spa boy’ has happily emptied the spa and turned it off whilst formal process is undertaken. (btw the pumps were set not to perform at night and I believe he never stated that he had the right to use it any time all the time: it’s not in his nature. At night he sat in it without any of the spa pumps working at all after the serial complainer set upon his mission.
12. I hope this gives some balance to the complaints made against ‘spa boy’ and your portrayal of my co-management style in the building that I love. We all hope that the record is soon to be set ‘straight’, and we all look forward to a time when serial complainer cheers up and seems a little more ‘gay’.  

[Author]

Replies