Reply To: OC back-dating insurance charges on studio

Thank you for your reply.

It has been used as a occasional flat when a relative staying over but generally just used as a separate living space, akin to a living room. It has its own bathroom space.

The historical claim seems premised in that none of any costs(in the form currently being proposed) have been recovered since the by-law was passed, regardless of current ownership. I did read somewhere that the current owner has to accept liabilities of previous ownership and thrash it out themselves. That the strata has seemingly failed, or even previously made a considered decision not to pursue costs outside of entitlements seems to have escaped them ie demonstrate to me that what is occurring to date(all costs through entitlements) has not previously been agreed, rather than the boot being on the other foot!

It is felt that it is personal, an aggrievance and somewhat anal given what I expect the cost to be involved. However there was/seems to be no real animosity at a personal level(the owner on her 90’s).

A more recent by-law was passed granting exclusive rights to three owners included that they had to pay a one-time compensatory charge of $123.45 each(or similar amount) and there was no on-going liability to beneficial owners, for the ongoing exclusive right to a total of 1.11sqm) . Maybe that gives you an impression of their thinking, while also being also to/leader of declining a motion for a reassessment of entitlements requested by another owner on a separate matter. And to top it off, the argument/request/demand has been communicated via the SM in legalese, with no independent legal input.

Both by-laws in principle have merit in being assessed through entitlements, but the chosen path seems to be direct charging(maybe because a reassessment of entitlements will result in no change? eg the lot owner being nearest to a freeway passing the property, and maybe a consequential consideration taken into account in any reassessment and potentially a reassessment coming back to bite them in the bum, albeit the correct basis for determining levies).

I would like the excess and cost of insurance increases due to a claim on the studio be put to bed as unsound and that an additional premium charge also be legally unsound as it puts an additional burden on the lot owner, something that does not apply to other lot owners.

I am sure that the original intent of the by-law was that the studio owner incur the same costs as any other owner in the scheme, and nothing punitive was intended(I mean it was “just” a local magistrate who agreed to the words in 1989!).

The approach being considered is to lie low at the moment but expect this wont, and will make itself on to the record. In the meantime we will just point out that the drain from the lot to the street is blocked, either on Council property and by Council tree or on strata  property and more meritous in pursuing!