The issue with the automatically negative approaches already given is, what are you really achieving by blocking a legal right? Trying to block legal access to property really doesn’t achieve anything and misses the benefits. It reeks a bit of American style home owner association control and compliance measures which we don’t have a basis for in Australia.
Having an owner use the common property, who is a landlord – them accessing and using common property means they arent just an absentee landlord. They are accessing, using and valuing the property.
The reality is, there is no lawful right to restrict their access. Suggesting a committee “make their lives difficult” is even more silly and is acting in bd faith. That is the exact path to create entirely unnecessary
They are more likely to maintain their own property and be involved to some extent, valuing common property. Isn’t that what committees and owners want?
Sometimes the short sighted nature of some views such as expressed here, which certainly aren’t backed up by law bewilder and is a throwback to an older generation view of “don’t let someone get something I don’t” sort of mentality which is a race to the bottom, rather than seeing the mutual benefit and interest in just following the laws and allowing people to do what they are allowed to.
You can attempt to block. It almost certainly isn’t legal. However why block when there is virtually no downside and the upside is that the owner is a member of the community who is more likely the positively contribute? Blocking this seems to be poor faith and creating conflict over something so petty for no good reason.
- This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by .