I have received a number of irritated emails from this correspondent about our failure to respond to this very long and very detailed complaint.
As far as I can tell – because the post goes on at great length without reaching any clear conclusion – Cricket has faulty underfloor heating and wants the owners corp to fix it.
The owners corp’s expert says it is not faulty and in the meantime has passed a by-law to which Cricket objected, making all owners responsible for their own underfloor heating.
Cricket wants to know if the by-law does not apply to him becasue he objected to it and if the owners corp is still responsible for the underfloor heating.
Before we go any further, I want to clarify that this Forum offers informed opinion, and not free legal advice
Here is my view.
Owners are still covered by by-laws even if they object to them, provided they are passed by special resolution at a properly constituted general meeting and are not in conflict with superior law.
An owners corporation can’t excuse itself from its responsibilities by passing retrospective by-laws.
There are avenues open to Cricket to pursue a Section 62 claim against the owners corp at NCAT for maintenance and repair of common property, regardless of any by-laws that may have been passed since he made his first complaint.
Regarding the advice given to the Owners Corp that the heating was working properly, he could argue that it was not independent.
And one general note. If readers have an issue that they want us to comment on, try to keep them short and to the point. You might think your legalese construction is convincing and compelling but after the first few paragraphs people just switch off, don’t read your posts and therefore don’t respond to them.