@kiwipaul said:
OP = Origional posterI don’t consider it fair and equitable that the EC can suddenly turn around and demand all these condition on alterations when previously it has turned ablind eye UNLESS it address these previous violations first.
It may not be fair but it’s the law. We shouldn’t be encouraging people to ignore state laws and/or the strata act and spend thousands of dollars on illegal renovations. They are the ones who have to live with the consequences of breaking the law … not us.
Have any of these violations been done by people on the committee if so that makes the situation even worse (corruption).
There’s no suggestion of that – it’s quiite clearly just a change of EC and the new people are trying to obey strata law where the previous ones didn’t (probably because they didn’t even realise there were any laws).
I agree 2 wrongs don’t make a right but the EC needs to address the original alterations rather than ignoring them.
The EC doesn’t need to do anything. There is no clear compulsion for them to enforce their by-laws – however the by-laws are there if they choose to enforce them. In any case, surely the first step in curbing rogue renovations is to control future work then deal with what happened in the past
The OP could claim precedence if he goes ahead without a bylaw unless they have addressed the original alterations.
Adammark can claim precedence where? The CTTT? The Supreme Court? AS far as I know there is no legal precedence in strata law in NSW – all cases are supposed to be considered on their individual merits.
Even if the OP spends thousands on doing what the EC requests their is still the possibility that he will fail to obtain a 75% majority to pass the new bylaw for his enclosure.
Adammark would be very unwise, then, to spend a cent they don’t have to until they have approval – which is exactly what you are proposing they do. You get the approval first and then you do the work.
Yes they will have to spend money on lawyers – that’s why I suggested sitting down and reaching agreement with the EC first rather than pursuing some BS quasi-legal confrontational approach which is doomed to failure
It has to apply the rules fairly to everyone and it cannot discriminate.
I agree with the philosophy but where does it say that in strata law? Also, this EC would say it was applying the rules fairly (and legally) – the decisions of previous ECs have nothing to do with them and they can’t be held to ransom over bad or negligent decisions in the past.
As to the opinion from the other forum he makes a good case and he has not been contradicted by anyone on that forum.
OK, then it must be true … or maybe it’s just a forum where people state opinions as fact and there’s nobody who knows what they’re talking about who even bothers to read it. I’ve been writing about strata for 10 years now and I have never heard of individual owners being compelled to pay for the creation of a by-law that has been drafted specifically to stop them doing what they wanted.
How about a sol(icitor???) on here commenting on this option
… submit a motion to the EC for the upcoming EC meeting asking that all owners that have have made alterations without a relevant bylaw must within 2 weeks show that they intend to submit a relevant bylaw within the following 4 weeks covering said alterations.
Be interested to here whether it’s legal or not but it would be a solution to unauthorized alterations which presently doesn’t exist in NSW.
It’s not legal. The EC doesn’t have the right to issue edicts or establish conditions like that unless there is a by-law to that effect. The solution is to pass a by-law that makes owners responsible for the unauthorised changes to common property that are carried out in their homes. No by-law, no authority – it’s as simple as that.
KP, I hate to sound harsh and we value your opinion – especially the Queensland perspective that you bring to the Forum – but regardless of how unfair the situation seems it’s irresponsible to advise people to ignore the legitimate requests of their Executive Committees just because someone else got away with it in the past.
That doesn’t wash in NSW and, I suspect, wouldn’t get you very far in Queensland either.