[Shackleton]

There are many stories of incompetent (and more) strata managers and I’m sure many are true. On the other hand the way I see some people treat strata managers makes me think they don’t earn enough money to justify the abuse they suffer. A not-for-profit strata manager? You gotta be kidding.

[Shackleton]

Yes it would be preferable that uninvited people not enter the property either by foot or by car but I suspect the matter has never been dealt with before as the configuration of the entrances to the property is already a major obstacle.

That chain raising idea is interersting and probably reasonably economical but we still need to get power to the 2 entrances which are some distance from any power source or the building itself.

Anyway something to include in the mix.

Thanks for your help!

[Shackleton]

How could I frustrate proceedings if I wasn’t there? Anyway thanks for confirming your knowledge that you were using dead people to pad your application. So the letter informing all owners of the situation was right! Shame on you!

So that other members of the forum know what happens for compulsory administration =  the compulsory strata manager is to exercise all the functions of the chairperson, treasurer, secretary and strata committee of the owners corporation persuant to part 237 of the strata management act which means the role of the compulsory manager is actually limited to specific functions.

[Shackleton]

There are photos doing the rounds showing examples of the illegal activity by these people confirmed by council and the certifier. There is some information here – People (and parties!) on balconies with no safety railings! and here – Illegal renovations occurring and all responsible bodies on holiday!

Ho hum

[Shackleton]

“This is very irritating, arguing the same case across two topics.”  Sorry.

“And it’s ducks, not ducts.” Actually in this case it really is “ducts”. The owner is refusing access to a row of ducts adjacent to their apartment despite the need for urgent inspection and repairs to common property plumbing.

 

[Shackleton]

Oh dear this has been labelled a coup, or as one owner always calls it, a coo.

The OP forgot to mention that they were the one who made the application to NCAT and included 2 deceased persons as supporting the application. The OP also forgot to mention they provided one version of the application to NCAT and another version to the owners. Unlike what the OP writes, the secretary never said the owners were neutral, it was NCAT which stated the Owners Corporation would be neutral. NCAT actually encouraged individual owners to participate in the matter if they wanted to.

The OP should really get their ducts in a row.

[Shackleton]

As an interested party in this application to NCAT I thought I would update this thread. I don’t agree with some of the content posted by the OP but won’t bother going into that as there is even more interesting detail.

The application was lodged by the OP in their name and 3 other parties. However as this matter proceeded through NCAT it was revealed that one of these parties had in fact died 2 years earlier. There was never any explanation as to why a dead person was included in the application but this reduced the number of real applicants from 4 to 3. It was also discovered that the person specifically nominated in the application to manage the scheme as the compulsory administrator was also dead and had been dead for almost a year. There was also never any explanation of this and as you can imagine NCAT wasn’t impressed by all these dead people in the application. Of the 3 remaining applicants, one was also a very elderly person who is uncontactable except through the OP who manages their affairs. The fourth applicant is also an elderly person and how this person got caught up in this farcical application is a mystery to most owners and residents.

There are 36 apartments in the scheme with the OP owning two and apparently acting for a third and fourth in the application. This left 32 potential respondents. Out of these 32 potential respondents, at least 22 opposed the OP’s application to hire their preferred strata managing agency with NCAT also questioning that agency’s independence. NCAT rejected the application of the OP and referred the strata scheme to a new strata managing agency for compulsory administration.

[Shackleton]

Nobody seems responsible. We have a safety issue at the moment regarding owners installing furniture, having BBQ’s, and generally using incomplete balconies with no safety railings in a multistory building. Hello to people and furniture falling off and crushing people below…

So far the following have claimed it is not their problem and/or try to ignore it and/or say it’s someone else’s issue: the council, the builder, the private certifier, the owners of said balconies, and NSW FT. The strata committee issued a warning which was flagrantly ignored by the owners acting illegally.

I have to say the private certifier seems to be stuck in the middle and seems to want to know as little as possible about the issue anyway. The most obvious questions were simply not addressed and when raised again the owners corporation was sent on another merry go-round of it being council/builder/private certifier/owners of said balconies/NSW FT responsibility.

[Shackleton]

Update: after initially advising they weren’t concerned council now advises that the owners doing renovations are in breach of the DA conditions. Council then passed the issue to the private certifier.

As advised previously; the warning notice sent by the strata committee to these renegade owners was ignored and the building manager even threatened and harassed. The private certifier has advised of serving a notice on the owners corporation for this breach of DA which is unfortunate as the strata committee acted immediately.

One of these particular owners (who is rather notorious in the complex) even had the hide to lie to the strata committe by claiming that the issue was resolved within an hour and that the strata committee was just being malicious and vindictive despite the fact use of these unguarded balconies continued for another 4 days. This was subsequently confirmed by the private certifier and the real-estate agent attending to one of the units involved.

At this stage ithe renegade owners seem to be superficially complying but there remain a few outstanding issues.

[Shackleton]

@Andy said:
If there is a DA then the council is concerned and there would be conditions attached including permitted access.

The council is probably sticking it’s head in the sand (or worse) like many councils when it comes to development. Let me guess they said it’s a private certifier issue? Let me guess the people doing the work also work for council?  

Good point and I will post separately as the council has done a backflip (or forward flip). Yes one of the owners doing work to their balcony has also done work this council and in particular the department that deals in DA’s. Sounds like they were quite tight…

[Shackleton]

Thanks for your replies.

So far the builder, council, and building certifier have been contacted. Both the builder and council advise it is not their responsibility but have taken note. For the time being no response from the works certifier. 

The Strata Committee sent correspondence to the various owners which has been ignored as the balconies are still being used with the locked “safety” doors wide open day and night. The building manager however was threatened by one of these owners for raising the concern in the first place.

[Shackleton]

Thanks for your point of view and good point about people not fully understanding the risk. For heavens sake some have now installed a TV and couch on their balcony only centimetres from the edge.

[Author]

Replies