#25742
TrulEConcerned
Flatchatter
Chat-starter

    Hey scotlandx

    You ask why the chap asked and will receive compensation. Simple: he claims that his tenants will be inconvenienced with tradies coming and going through his lot to fix an OC asset (the balcony). I didn’t buy that argument, because

    a) there is nothing in the Act about such payment;

    b) he wants to be paid the number of weeks allegedly inconvenienced multiplied by the weekly rent. That is, he wants to tell the OC how long the work took place AND wants the weekly rent paid by the OC for the period the works take placeH

    c) He says that he will need to offer some compensation to his tenants and (with his EC pal) insists the OC to pay for that

    d) He forgets to remind the OC that he is adding furniture to the balcony, which in due course will be enjoyed by his tenants and that a small inconvenience (without he rent being compensated) is reasonable. To have the OC pay for repairs on the balcony and to allow him to add furniture to the balcony allowing him to raise his rent while his tenants’ alleged inconvenience is compensated by the OC is something I find objectionable.

    e) He refused a transparent investigation into the source of the leaks.

    f) I did not carry on with my objections because my view is irrelevant when there are 5 lots in all and 4 are on the EC. Guess who was not asked to join the EC?

     

    You say that you would complain and seek an order to stop the works. My question is: how would Fair Trading or NCAT consider the matter if 4 out of 5 owners agree to the payment, even if it’s not in the Act.

     

    I ask because, let’s say that the OC can do whatever it wants if it has the numbers, what is to stop an OC compensating an owner a limitless sum?