@Kangaroo said:
I’m also sick of volunteer ECs being disparaged … the majority are doing a a reasonably good job of meeting their responsibilities under the Act, plus helping their neighbours (not a responsibility under the Act) for completely unselfish reasons. The selfish people are actually the owners who never volunteer for the EC, never attend meetings, and expect someone else to handle all the dramas.
I don’t disagree with the last part of your comment but the EC in this issue has decided to do nothing. Not our problem, they say. I would be the last person to disparage all ECs but I am sick of people who scramble to get on the EC to protect their own interests then whinge if anyone asks them to take some responsibility.
Of course that’s not all EC members – it may even be a minority – but we are talking about a particular building where the EC said, “not our problem … you are on your own, buddy.”
They have set the ground rules. Pmayes has been told to sort it out himself. So he can, in my view, change the game by moving the car on to common property and then quickly occupying the space with another vehicle.
I would not be saying this if the EC had said they would take even the most basic steps to find out who the owner is – which is a hell of a lot easier for them to do than it is for an individual.
But THIS EC has chosen to do nothing. And if that’s how they want to play it, let them understand that there are consequences to inaction, just as there are to wrong actions.