Jimmy wrote:
So at the the risk of banging the same old drum again, here in no particular order and based on six years of emails to the Flat Chat column and postings on the website, are what we reckon the main issues are.
- Lack of consistency and clarity in decisions
- Too much red tape
- Inability to award costs against serial offenders
- Inability to award costs against serial nuisance complainers
Number 4 bothers me. I am aware of one poster on this forum who has made application after application relating to the management of his block. The poster claims the biggest problem in his building is the dominant figure on the EC. This dominant figure happens to be a CTTT member.
I have inadvertently met this CTTT member and i have on my travels also run into people from the block of units in questions. If I believe the CTTT member then the owner (the poster) is a serial nuisance; if i believe the owners i have talked to then CTTT is corrupt and the member runs the units very poorly.
The block in question is currently trying to have ordered management put in place – how will it look if CTTT order management because a CTTT member was not running the block satisfactorily or meeting the requirements of the Act? (I can't see that ever happening and from what i have read on the posts about the matter, CTTT will not let that happen.)
The point is; is the person (the poster) from this block a serial nuisance? I do not think so, some of the owners in his block do not think so but the CTTT member running the block thinks so and CTTT may also think so.
I will mention that when i talked to the CTTT member he had no idea he was the focus of a topic on this forum. From what he told me i would have no hesitation in saying he is not overly compliant with all aspects of the Act – by his own comments it was clear he does not always strictly follow what the Act says. Interestingly the CTTT member has not lost a case to the “serial nuisance” yet.
Here is my point. Over the last 18 months i have come to the conclusion that about 90% of the Strata Schemes Management Act does not genuinely need to be strictly followed. It is not until failures or lack of compliance starts leading to disadvantage or loss that CTTT feel inclined to act. Failure that are, according to CTTT, of little or no real consequence are not matters CTTT are interested in.
Point 4 above says that there should be an ability to award costs against serial nuisance complainers. A serial complainer could simply be someone who has read the SSMA and takes issue with the lack of compliance in their block. The matters they raise may be innocuous to CTTT but my experience is that innocuous failure lead to serious failures. Non compliance becomes a culture which can lead to unnecessary expenses to the owners and can also seriously devalue a block.
I have watched a presentation from Michael Teys (Teys Lawyers – one of the forums sponsors) in which Michael talks about something as innocent as not holding an AGM within the time frame specified by the Act. This is the type of innocuos indiscretion CTTT is not interested in but is someone who raises several cases relating to multiple equivalent “trivial” issues really a serial nuisance complainer or just someone who wants good compliance?
The current topic found on the home page of Flat Chat is where i lifted the opening comment from Jimmy. The comments go on to imply by-laws should be respected but i feel that it isn't just by-laws that should mean what they say and get respected for it – the SSMA gets little respect from countless SP's (the Flat-chat forum is testimony to that).
I understand where point 4 above is coming from but it is also very dangerous as long as compliance to the SSMA is not considered a priority by the overseeing jurisdiction (CTTT).