[Whoopi]

We have also suffered proxy farming but also the gathering of company nominees. Do you know if the new laws also include company nominees being limited. We have one person on the committee holding over twenty five company nominees. Thanks

[Whoopi]

Dear larchibald

This is exactly what has happened to my husband and I. We are almost eight years with leaks and mould and it has  destroyed us emotionally, physically and financially. We are still leaking with mould and buckets filling up after four sets of  orders from the tribunal. Millions of dollars have been wasted on lawyers and experts and works that have now failed. Works supervised by committee members  who had no qualifications. We too are worse off than  when we started even though we won every case.

We now have a compulsory manager and there is a dim light at the end of the long long tunnel. The Tribunal did not grant us the compulsory manager, we had tried three times to get one.  The tribunal ignored our discomfort, our safety, the  devaluing of our home and the fact that our building became a war zone, that the costs were  escalating and that the OC had shown no real motivation to  maintain the building to proper standards.  We ended up  with a bit of luck and a long story achieving our compulsory manager through a settlement agreement after our building went broke.

There are so many suffering individual owners out there. As individuals we have no political power and no one really cares. We do need to join together to lobby the government, OCN and the tribunal for changes in the protection of the individual owner in Strata. This of course won’t happen in my life time, there are no ‘votes’  in the individual owner. Of course you have your hands full with ill health and we are  broken as well so where  can one find the  strength to keep on fighting? There needs to be an ‘advocate’ appointed for individuals in Strata, as strata is a vote system and fraud on the minority is rife when whole buildings gang up against spending money to maintain  CP. The Commissioner has had his hands full with developers and  only speaks to strata committees  so you can’t get help from him either. I tried.

 In this City of Sydney it is a disgrace innocent people paying taxes and levies and stamp duty live  in unhealthy conditions for decades.

I truly believe that if  people are experiencing leaks the works should be done immediately to Australian standards,  not  almost a decade later.  Currently after orders are handed down partial  lip service works are done by OC’s in order to appease  the tribunal and win cases and avoid a compulsory manager. The lawyers know all the tricks to sway members.

If there is an argument over who  is responsible for works, this argument can take place any way, but the works get done first, independently scoped and costed.  When the OC  is refusing to do works it is obvious they will not do  the works properly and they have no fear  of consequence or incentive to do so.  There should be no “stays ” when  it comes to  water ingress and safety. Time extensions and stays  are handed out like lollies at a pantomime in the tribunal. If an OC refuses to do the works then they should also lose the right to scope the works and choose trades as they generally do not act in good faith. Committees have too much power when it comes to major defects.

Owners  should be able to withhold their levies for the areas of their homes which are deemed wet.

We are about to start the works for third time, all of the previous shoddy works have to be removed and there is 1.4 millions dollars of works to be redone apart from the wasted  money on legals and previous works.

The tribunal does not self investigate, even if you want to make a complaint that complaint goes directly to the member who is hearing your case not an independent party.

You are welcome to contact us  privately  if you want to know how we managed to finally get a compulsory manager.

I wish you strength and resolution.

Whoopi

 

 

[Whoopi]

Dear Flat chatters,

Thank you for your advice.

Law firm sacked

Decades of  crusty old Committee sacked

Building manager sacked

Strata manager sacked

Compulsory manager appointed

Sanity at last after seven years  of  wasted money.

Strata is not a healthy place when  an owner leaks for seven years and cannot get  the tribunal to enforce its orders.

I have said it once and I will say it again committees and owners should not have  the power to vote against maintaining defects of a building.

Sect 237 is not draconian

Lawyers play games with orders and legal loopholes and the tribunal turns a blind eye to it.

Thank you all once again for your advice.

 

[Whoopi]

Hi Kaindub

This was very helpful, I am grateful to you, it was used in the meeting and helped to defeat this by law.

 

[Whoopi]

Thanks Flat chatters

I was successful in arguing against this bylaw in the AGM, the OC intend on rewriting it according to the Strata Manager so I may be back if they return with another  by law that is oppressive.

Many thanks for all of this invaluable information. My saga does continue after 7 years and multiple  tribunal appearances.

Whoopi

[Whoopi]

Hi Flat chatters

Here is the case below.

Thank you for your input so far brilliant.

File numbers 2021/00262738  and 2021/00262728

The Owners – SP No 91684 v Liu; The Owners – SP No 90189 v Liu [2022] NSWCATAP 1Hearing dates:22 November 2021Date of orders:5 January 2022Decision date:05 January 2022

https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/17e22127a8663b4137b25d5c

I suspect this bylaw is a bullying bylaw which only serves  law firms and  Strata Managers and committees who wish to oppress the rights of  lot owners . This bylaw plunges the owners into fear of speaking up about  an issue for fear of  heavy expenses being imposed upon them.

[Whoopi]

Thank you so much,   This is excellent advice and  the generator is Common Property and has not  been maintained. it does have a purpose and I will talk to the relevant  authorities.

[Whoopi]

Thank you this is great advice. I also imagine that  if they are intending on doing this they should have a resolution to spend the money for the demolition and repurposing of the room.   This committee has a tendency to just go ahead and do things without running it by the owners.

I will look into what you have advised. When you say title document do you mean Strata Plan  I have the Strata Plan. I don’t think I have a title document.

[Whoopi]

Hi

Thanks for responding.

It was just a membrane before but the type that is painted on in a liquid form. This left me with a smooth concrete surface. It was not un attractive a soft light grey colour, gentle under foot. I believe this  committee had taken up the original tiles long before I had bought the property and not replaced them. This type of membrane  is about to be used  on other surfaces on the building . The membrane they have just installed on my lot is  not  any where else on the building, just my lot.

The deck is part of my lot but the membrane is Common property. I pay levies for the area. The OC were Ordered to  replace the membrane for failure to maintain it. The rest of the lot roof terrace is tiled. I did not expect them to tile it but I did expect a smooth surface which is what I had before and a membrane that was residential not industrial for maintenance traffic only. The membrane they have installed is usually seen on the roof of  a building not the deck of a residential lot. It cannot be tiled over. It is a torch on.

I was not referring to any Australian standard specifically, I was looking for some kind of regulation  to  stop a trip hazard being left on my lot.  We had to hold the OC to BCA and Australian standard codes to get the work done properly. The works were appalling , not warrantied by the builder who was instructed by the committee, did not stop the leaks and did not comply  to the orders. We could not find a code any where that stops an OC from giving a lot owner an un even  surface on their lot, that they cannot use. If I choose to cover this myself I will be forced to take a bylaw for a membrane I do not think will hold up. I will be forced to build some kind of deck that will adjust to the uneven levels, it will be a huge expense which I should not have to bear. It would need to be attached to common property.

I hope this helps and thanks again for answering my letter

Whoopi

[Whoopi]

Thanks for writing this article . My building has this by law. As I have just won two cases against my OC I wish their Costs bylaw worked in reverse . If they think they can claim costs against an owner if the the owner fails in litigation, then shouldn’t the owner be able to claim costs against the OC when they fail in litigation!

[Whoopi]

Dear Jimmy

Normally you would be right in this wonderful suggestion. Most committees will find  some way to resolve a conflict based on the fact it will end up being cheaper for the building in the long run. I have done all of the above mentioned.  Multiple mediations and settlement meetings over the last five years, meetings with lawyers, with mediators, meetings without lawyers. Every time it failed because there was no incentive for the lawyers and barristers and committee to stop the conflict, their incentive is to fight and win, send us broke and stay in power. They do not seem to mind spending the owners’ money. It is very personal.  Toxic yes,  the only thing the committee wants is to make us move. They have unfortunately been so good at being destructive to our property we cannot move due to continuing litigation and  continuing water ingress and damage and un-warrantied works, half tiled balconies, patched  leaking membranes etc. No one  in their right mind would buy this property. This is also our main investment which has been devalued to the point we cannot afford to sell or else we would have no nest egg for our old age. We also have a frail elderly person  living with us with all of the disability needs built into the unit and close access to hospitals. We have made endless offers and all have been refused. Their offers were not offers but extortion, demanding us to pay them money to go away, to pay for work they were ordered to do and take bylaws for work we did not do that no other  previous owners were asked  to take.  We have broken no bylaws, done no unauthorised renos,  we pay our levies  on time always. We have never abused anyone. I understand your point about the olive branch, we offered this after the appeal and then they put together a scope  of works that did not comply with the orders. Every offer of peace was done in writing. We have also won every case so far,  the owners  are fed propaganda,  told we refuse to negotiate and  they continue to pay special levies, they should not need to pay for, if the work was done properly in the first place.  At this point we will play the long game, we have no choice.  We actually needed ‘orders’  because we knew any deal that was struck would not be honoured, and then we would have no recourse.  At least with orders we have something. As it is, the orders were not complied with!  I would like there to be an opportunity for investigation of  and accountability of committees and buildings with long standing  conflicts which does not involve a tribunal. Inspections on sight of works  and investigative probes into the reason why conflicts  can fester like this. Fair Trading needs more powers. Each time we go to the tribunal we get a new member if we had the same member each time there would  be a through line and we would not have to start from scratch each time. We have not initiated all of the litigation there has been vexatious litigation  started against us and when that happens  you have no choice  but to defend yourself. The alternative is even more costly. The works were so far $500,00 there would be another at least $200,000 to do.  How does one offer to tile and waterproof half a CP balcony and then who is responsible for half a balcony? Thanks for your support, I know you may think we are being stubborn but we have carefully thought out the options and the flow on affect of the unconscionable oppressive and harsh  bylaws they are blackmailing us with.  We have taken much advice from many  people legal and not legal. We won the first tribunal  for failure to maintain CP. We substantiality won the appeal and had orders  for the works to be done, there were three requests for extensions of time to for the OC to comply during which time the  OC agitated two more cases against us. We recently won a case  in regards to unreasonable refusal of bylaws. We also won a case over their refusal to do the demolition needed to get to the membrane. It is astounding how far this committee has gone to avoid their duty of maintaining the building. We have now been forced to go back for a renewal of proceedings as we are still leaking into five rooms, our home was not restored to its former state, works were not warrantied and not to Australian standards. The appeal panel refused an extension of time unless we agreed and we did not,   they were never going to comply. This nightmare for us is exacerbated by legal firms that have found ways to agitate cases where no conflict should exist and ways around orders and time frames.  No one enforces the strata laws or  orders, only the individual owner who is seriously disadvantaged in the system. Giving a committee responsibility over works they fought so hard to avoid is like  giving the keys of the safe to a bank robber. The owners have no idea how much money has been spent on legals. I know there is nothing you can say or do to help me. I would like to invite you to come and see it. Thanks for responding.

[Whoopi]

Thanks for the response. I was afraid  that would be your answer.

The roof of my apartment is CP property, but is directly over us, so it is inside the boundary of our lot but above the Stratum area. The OC can access it  by ladder from the  CP area next to it. Which means they can get up there without knocking on my front door.

There have been several instances where the OC have done intrusive work like grinding without notice. In these days of working from home it is a problem. They are rude on purpose. Another case of the OC having all the power and the individual owner having no rights. If they needed to enter the lot to get to the roof they would need to give us notice, because they do not need to enter the lot to get to the roof they just go up there and invade our privacy and  disturb us and there is nothing we can do. It is intimidating.

Whoopi

[Whoopi]

Hi Flatchatters

NSW. I may not have written my question very clearly hence  the silence. Can anyone tell me  if an OC  can be on your roof working,  interfering with the enjoyment of your lot without notice?

What are the rights of the owners  in regards to notification of works done  above and around their lot?

Sorry if my last  post was  muddled.

[Whoopi]

Dear Jimmy and Flatchatters,

I have also been through this abuse with opposing Strata lawyers and barristers. Not only in the form of letters but also in mediation and in the tribunal itself.
When it came to letters we were constantly and repeatedly threatened including having letters sent to us in RED text giving us only hours to respond immediately or they would take action! A letter was sent to all of the owners on the letter head of the opposing lawyer which was false and misleading, vilifying and defamatory. The letter was not sent to us.

The letter falsely told the owners we had done vast renovations without approval and we were aggressive and threatening towards tradesmen and that it was us that started all of the litigation. All of this was untrue but influenced the vote of the owners against us.

The lawyers name was attached as the contact point for the owners to ask questions. Recently the opposing law firm threatened to send a letter to the tribunal even if we did not consent to it , which was in clear contradiction to the rules for lawyers in the tribunal and their code of conduct.

Our lawyer was forced to threaten them with taking action if they persisted with this unsolicited submission to the tribunal which stated their case and was biased against us. They backed off on this one.

We also found the lawyers were able to agitate more conflict to continue vexatious litigation and we found ourselves after winning our initial case defending not one but two cases in the tribunal. These cases could have only been agitated by the guns for hire lawyers, as the OC without a deep understanding of the loopholes in the law could not have imagined that these legal attacks were possible.

The lawyers knew that there are no consequences for not complying with appeal panel orders so they just ignored deadlines for the works to be done and even then did not comply to the orders. Obviously it was a case of the committee saying we want to get theses owners so come up with what ever you can and go for it.

After we won orders against the OC to do remediation work and they could stall (eight months) no longer we were accused us of refusing ‘unfettered’ access. At no time did we refuse access. What this really meant was the OC were refusing to do the demolition they needed to do to get to the membrane.

The orders said ‘Take all steps to repair the membrane’ They wanted us to do the demolition and pay for it. Also if they managed to bully us into removing tiles and planter boxes and timber decks etc. they would not be forced to replace them under Sect 126 of the act.

Very clever of the lawyers and leaving us with an industrial looking lot with no landscaping , a bare unsightly membrane which is uninhabitable. We have been forced to go back to tribunal to fight to get our lot reinstated the way it was and also the get the orders complied with.

The lawyers told the OC they could declare items that were not on the strata plan as unauthorised after decades, so they then tried to force us to take by laws for works which were 38 yeas old and already represented as in situ on the lot in three previous bylaws.

We were accused of unreasonable refusal to take a bylaw. Yes, for work we did not do, decades old and already drawn into bylaws and acknowledged by the OC as present on the lot. Work that previous owners had never been required to take bylaws for, we were suddenly thrust back into the tribunal. The bylaw was full of items including things that did not exist or had been removed years earlier or had never really existed.

In mediation in front of a member the yelling from the opposing barrister was so loud you could hear him through the walls, it was traumatising for us. Mediation was a bully fest of threats telling us we would not win when we had already won the case out right. In the tribunal this barrister told the member we were Evil people and my husband a liar, yes he used the word liar in the tribunal!

In the Appeal this barrister lied to the members and due to this lie we lost some very small aspects of the case, not enough to lose the appeal but enough to stop us getting costs. Due to threats during an Appeal the opposing lawyer influenced the members to force us back into an adjournment and another mediation this cost us $15,000 in more legal fees and was of course unsuccessful.

Their agenda was to continue to force us into mediation to cost us money, break us emotionally and financially. When we went to mediation they would not mediate but dictate. The lawyers would come to the AGMs and make us leave the room whilst they spoke to the owners, we had no right of reply and had no idea what they were telling the owners.

The opposing lawyers even entered our property without asking for permission for access or notifying us they were entering our lot, they did not even knock on the door, they just walked onto our lot and wandered around until asked to leave, but not without a long and stressful argument. These lawyers ( not all) are behaving like bullies and cowboys they have no interest in resolution. There is no money in resolution for them.

I have also spoken on this forum about the recovery of costs bylaw put together by a well known law firm which allows OCs to charge indiscriminate costs to owners for all sorts of things including legal costs, this is in contradiction to the strata schemes act and was passed in our building and a tribunal member put the committee and lawyer firmly in their place stating unequivocally this by law was invalid and could not be used to enforce owners to hand over money.

But this bylaw still stays in place in our building and owners who are not as switched on to the law or have english a second language who are disabled or elderly do not stand a chance against this kind of strata bullying. If they want to fight this they are forced to lawyer up and go to the tribunal.

We await findings for two cases and are adjourned for another case awaiting reconvening all because the lawyers are having a field day with us. I would like to say that my current lawyers are honourable and supportive and try not to cost me too much money and I am grateful for their guidance.

[Whoopi]

Hi all

Correct me if I am wrong but in NSW Sect 122 (6) of the act states if any lot or common property is damaged during works undertaken they must be replaced.

An owners corporation is liable for any damage to a lot or any of its contents caused by or arising out of the carrying out of any work, or the exercise of a power of entry, referred to in this  unless the damage arose because the owners corporation was obstructed or hindered.

I am not a lawyer, I am an owner who is going through the same issue. Good luck.

[Author]

Replies