[Verago]

@OverIt said:
1. As the successful applicant, can I do this?

Yes you can.

2. Do I have to go through the mediation process again?.  We are unable to be in the same room together and our previous mediations have been in separate rooms.

s.162 doesn’t require the mediation process.

3. Given the slowness of applications in the CTTT and probably the new NCAT how long before the expiration of the current SM’s compulsory appointment should I put in my application?

Situation’s could change, I will be applying for 12 months on the scheme I live in, and two months before expiry requesting another 12 months extension. It seems to me you have enough evidence that warrants a s.162.

The reason I say situations change, you might want to sell and need clean books, or the other owner sells, and you have a period with the new owners that works.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the information. 

[Verago]

“Overlt” – yes, duplexes have real problems. Interestingly, duplexes or two unit schemes comprise the majority in NSW.  I agree with you that they should not allow any more to be built. 

As you are aware, in two unit schemes, each owner is automatically an EC member.

In my case, the other owner has more UE’s than mine and outvoted all my repair motions in general meetings. 

I am also unable to get agreement on By-law “Notices to Comply” in EC meetings because the other owner and his tenants are the culprits. 

To get common property repairs done in my strata scheme I have had to go to the CTTT and ask for a compulsory manager on three occasions in 13 years.  I was successful on each occasion. 

However, does not make for harmonious relationships with the other owner and it has taken a toll on my health.

 

 

 

[Verago]

Yes, I do have the proof the minutes of meetings and the Adjudicator’s comments in his decision that the other owner said our expert reports were biased and should not be given any weight.

Yes, the strata scheme does have building insurance because we are a three story duplex scheme.  Perhaps I could ask the SM to have a look at the policy?

The other lot owner suddenly moved out when he was being pursued by the SM for his share of the large five figure sum special levy. It took six months, but the SM finally got the money.  The lot owner is now renting out his unit. 

My other issue is the cost of the expert reports that I paid for including a large technical report and scope of works prepared under the Expert Witness Code of Practice, that I submitted to the CTTT.  The CTTT ordered that those reports and the recommendations contained therein be accepted and the work undertaken according to their specifications.  This cost has amounted to a large four figure sum.  Before our SM became a s.162 compulsory appointment (on my application), I put a motion on the agenda of a general meeting that I be reimbursed for the cost of these reports according to my share of UE’s, only to be voted down by the other owner.

All in all, I am financially very much out of pocket.  The cost of the reports, my share of the five figure special levy and now the damage to my belongings.

Thank you Jimmy, I will take your advice and have to look at the cost of pursuing the owner in the small claims court. 

 

 

 

[Verago]

KiwiPaul – thank you for your advice.  I will get a quote.  I have looked at my home and contents insurance with the NRMA and it says that the home must be “water tight” so I am not optimist.

This is a problem in strata units – particularly two unit schemes where the financial burden falls on just two owners.  I should not have to bear any of the cost of the damage to my furniture/carpets at all.

There is a problem with law in instances such as this.  The other owner, who voted down all my motions to repair the water ingress problem over a period of three years, despite my submitting an expert mould report prepared under the Expert Witness Code of Practice to the OC has contributed to the long delays.  He should be liable.

 

 

 

[Verago]

I thoroughly endorse Richard Holloway’s comments about pets in strata. We are fortunate to live in a two unit strata scheme where pets are allowed with the OC’s permission. We have a Bichon Frise dog who has a wool coat and does not smell and is under 10kgs. He is the quintessential “lap dog”. He is not a yappy dog and only barks when someone comes to the door. He loves my husband’s mobility scooter and goes shopping with him harnessed to the running board under my husband’s feet. Our dog is very appealing and my husband has lost count of the number of times elderly people, particularly women who have lost their partners come up to him and pet our dog telling my husband that they cannot have a pet in their unit. Many of them have tears in their eyes as they say this. My husband is 85 and says that when I am away our dog is a great comfort to him. I myself feel a level of calm come over me when our dog gets on my lap, lays on his back,looks at me with his panda eyes and wants to be petted,then goes to sleep snoring!

[Verago]

Too many owners do not fully understand or choose not to understand the communal living nature of strata.  Owners that do not pay their levies place a burden on the other owners in a strata scheme.In my case it is a particularly heavy burden.

By way of example, I live in a two unit scheme.  I have been successful in obtaining a CTTT order against the OC to undertake water ingress and urgent OH&S repairs. I was also successful in obtaining a s.162 compulsory manager for two years to manage the scheme with all the powers of the OC and EC.  That was the only way that the repairs could be undertaken.  The other owner who had more UE’s consistently voted against the repairs. The problem is so bad that the OC’s insurer has refused to insure the OC for public liability in the areas of the common property that need repair.  The CTTT ordered the SM to raise a special levy to undertake the repairs. The other owner who consistently blocked my attempts to get the repairs undertaken is now not surprisingly substantially in arrears to a five figure sum. 

I have paid my five figure share of the special levy.  However, this means I am in effect carrying the strata scheme.  It is only my money that is allowing the strata scheme to function.

Fortunately we have a very good SM who is diligent in pursuing the other owner.  However, the legal fees for doing so are mounting up. 

It is absolutely right that the miscreant owner should pay for the legal costs of pursuing him.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Verago]

We live in a two unit strata scheme.  The scheme has a CTTT order to undertake long overdue repairs.  We were the successful applicants –  we are also the minority UE holders.  We asked the CTTT for a compulsory strata manager with all the powers of the OC and the executive with orders to undertake the repairs.  We were successful.

The other owners are in arrears in their quarterly levies and the SM has started debt collection procedures.

The SM has been ordered by the CTTT on our application to raise a very large special levy to undertake the repair orders. We are happy to pay our share. 

However, the SM has told us that in the event the other owners do not pay their share, that he will raise another special levy effectively making us pay twice.  We are talking about a six figure sum doubled in a two unit scheme!  The SM further added that if we do not pay our share again that not only will he bankrupt the other owners but us as well.

We were left shocked by this statement.  It has caused us considerable distress and sleepless nights.   We are an aged couple and full pensioners one of whom is an octogenarian with heart disease. Our home is our only asset.  We face being made homeless.

We are unable to pay twice in the event that the other owners do not pay their share of the six figure special levy.

We are the successful applicants  – the “good guys” in this matter. 

This is extremely inequitable. The SM is using his unlimited power in an intimidatory and heavy handed manner.  It may constitute a “fraud of the minority”.

When he was asked why he is doing this the SM said that “he had to fulfill the orders of the CTTT”.

The CTTT is not a police force.  The CTTT will only take action if we the successful applicants lodged a complaint that the orders have not been completed within the time frame.

We have sought an alternative source of funding through a strata finance company.  They are prepared to advance the OC sufficient funds to complete the orders.  The effect of this would be that the orders could be completed within the ordered time frame and without delays. The SM could then pursue the other owners who are in arrears.  We have tried to contact the SM by phone and email to put this alternative funding proposal to him.  He does not respond.

The majority of strata schemes in NSW are two unit schemes.  It would seem that owners in these schemes have a real risk of losing their homes in situations such as this.

Owners, potential purchasers and mortgagees should be aware of the extra risks involved in buying into two-unit schemes as detailed above.

We are completely at the mercy of this SM and have the “Sword of Damocles” hanging over us, ruining our health and quality of life.

Nobody, let alone aged pensioners, should be subjected to this.

We seek your thoughts and advice and what to do.

 

 

 

[Verago]

Thanks Jimmy and to all for good advice.  My lawyer has written to them and warned them the noise is being recorded. There is no legal problem with that.  My lawyer has told me to keep a “noise log” which is what I have been doing.  I am preparing to lodge an application at the CTTT over the problem. 

[Author]

Replies