Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
If you end up at the tribunal, what is important is the fact that the end of lease condition report was signed off by the agent without listing a problem with the light fitting.
Objectively it is clear that a problem may or may not have arisen after the end of lease inspection. That is, the landlord is trying one on you.
I suggest you do nothing other than refer him to the above mentioned condition report.
I can’t see him able to justify to Fair Trading or the Tribunal your liability after you were cleared of liability via the condition report.
I looked into such a circumstance months ago, but from the OC point of view.
That said, what I found addresses your problem.
The tall tree was in one lot and did encroach any neighboring property.
I discovered:
If the tree is on a lot’s land ie not common property and is not causing a problem then it is the lot owner who decides if to prune or cut or remove;
In the absence of a direction from the local council to remove the tree, the OC cannot dictate what an owner does with the tree unless the tree is causing problems like shedding leaves on common property;
Many trees in time will cause problems with leaves shedding or expanding roots etc. at that time the OC can demand the lot owner takes action;
If for whatever reason the OC wants pruning cutting or removal tale place asap, they can always offer you to pay part of the cost;
If the tree is designated by council as dangerous, unsuitable for its location etc then if instructed to remove then the owner of the tree, is lot owner concerned, must comply with council directions at his own cost. It is strictly a matter between the lot owner and council; and
If the lot owner wants the tree removed cut it pruned, the questions are (1) is the tree of a type or size that requires council permission before taking action and (2) if council permission is needed, then correspondence is between the lot owner, the strata plan in this case is a bystander, and council and the cost is for account of the lot owner himself.
Hopefully the above clarifies the issue.
As I have experienced it, a tied vote means the motion is lost.
I believe you are asking the wrong question.
First you need to determine who owns the hot water tank. Is it one lot or is it the OC?
The following comes to mind:
1. Assuming the SM was delegated functions of the committee, find out who agreed to the SM handling most of not all functions of the committee;
2. Ask him, her or them if they are happy with the situation and if they are not happy ask them how they plan to fix a problem they created;
3. Often committees will prefer to delegate many functions to the SM, thinking, erroneously that any misdeed by the SM will be the responsibility of the SM. False. The buck stops with the OC;
4. Please be aware that no matter how one sided a contract with a SM is, the contractual terms, if legal, trump anything Fair Trading can do to help you; and
5. What you will probably need to do is renegotiate the contract with the SM.
Hope this helps.
Quark, you asked about the time it takes for a matter to be heard by the mediator.
As I understand it, you first file ( apply) online for mediation. Fair Trading will get back to you in no less than 10 days with a date for mediation which will be 8 weeks later at least.
And that assumes your application for mediation has no unanswered questions from FT’s point of view. If FT wants clarification from you, then only when FT studies your reply will a date for mediation be set.
The other side will have time say 14 days to accept or turn down the invitation to mediation. After the mediation session takes place, and you’re unhappy with the outcome or if the other side turns down the invitation to mediation then you could apply to ncat, for which there may be another 3 mths wait for the initial hearing.
If the other side digs in its heels, the matter may be heard by ncat over a few months with an order handed down possibly several months later.
@broy
Time is your enemy. While you scour for opinions as to how to get the OC to comply, you must file with ncat ASAP.
You have attempted mediation and that’s your ticket to filing with ncat.
From the time you file it will be months before the matter is first heard at ncat
I suggest you contact a strata lawyer with a summary of your case and ask for a quote to prepare the papers and to file them with ncat.
The committee will at least see you are fair dinkum about resolving the matter
@ tony
You are right writing that broy would be in a good position if he was a tenant. So true.
I would write a polite letter to the committee and agent instructing them to fix the problem as it is their duty under s.106 of the SSM Act. The alleged high cost of the work is no defense for inactivity. Emphasize the serious health ramifications of living with such mould. Give them 7 days to reply with their proposed actions to fix it. Make clear that if they don’t reply or if their reply is inadequate then on day 8 you’ll hire a lawyer – this website is sponsored by strata lawyers, so you could contact one of them – in preparation for Ncat hearing. Once you win at Ncat most of your expenses should be sheeted home to the OC.
TimSP, I suggest you call ncat not FT and ask them how to compel the strata mgr to circulate your ncat application to all lot owners.
Ask ncat what can be done about the strata mgr and OC ignoring their obligations under the SSM Act in this regard.
Not intending to prick anyone’s balloon but I heard of a similar case where tenants got nowhere with a landlord and property management company when seeking rent reduction. Mediation got nowhere (if it took place, I don’t know,) and so they went to NCAT asking instead for the right to break the lease without penalty, given their “suffering from noise” which was not disputed.
They got their wish.
Lease terminated two weeks later with no penalty for the tenant to pay.
Maybe one strategy should be to get the Teal MPs on board advocating for strata owners? I am not a Teal supporter but if they forced change to benefit owners, I would vote for them.
Surely ultimate blame for the appalling contracts lies not with the dodgy outfit called (chuckle, chuckle) the strata community association but with politicians who have the power to bring in changes or bring the SCA to heel. But choose not to.
After all, a very badly behaving dog is more often than not a function of its master who through poor training or indifference created the monster.