› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Deemed served and proper notice › Current Page
That said, there is a convention that you have to allow two or three working days (not including weekends) for notices to arrive by mail, if that’s how they were sent.
That is the issue.
It is 7 business days in the mail in order to claim evidence notices were served (Interpretation Act s 76 and Evidence Act s 160) and the claim by some on the SC (thanks to advice from the agent) is that because those 7 days were not allowed for (only 6) that, even though no one is saying “I didn’t get my notice”, the SC meeting is not compliant because of s 160 of the Evidence Act.
And the interesting part is even if there is an owner or two who do not get their notice it isn’t fatal to anything that will occur. It is just hopeless trying to run this SP in any way other than something that involves dysfunction being the main part of anything that goes on.
The issue is s 160 of the Evidence Act
Sch 2 cl 4 of the Strata Act (SSM Act) says owners need to have their notices 3 days before the meeting.
Nothing about when they get mailed, as long as they get their 3 days.
To me Sch 2 cl 4 is where the compliance occurs, or does not occur.
How does someone convey this to the recalcitrant?
I would love for you to send someone round.
Perhaps in that lies the solution to a lot of strata issue; there needs to be people who can be sent round.
Significant problems is an understatement.
FT have proven useless, CTTT and NCAT useless; yes they are the same thing just a different badge at a different point in time but it gives you an idea of how long the dysfunction has dominated the management.
From CTTT Member Phillipps in 2006
“At the outset let me state that judging by the material in this file and on file SCS 06/44900 this is a strata scheme that is not particularly well organised and in which communications appear to be dysfunctional….”
And nothing has changed despite repeated attempts to get intervention.
Catherine Cusack, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Wednesday 18 June 2008;
“The CTTT seems to reward liars, rogues and defaulters, yet it punishes honest people …”
Nearly 20 years on and we still have the same problems.
This SP is not particularly well organised and whatever tag CTTT operate under they still reward the rogues.
Is s 160 of the Evidence Act a pre condition to a compliant SC meeting notice OR is satisfying Sch 2 cl 4 all that really matters?