Strata Schemes Management Act was clearly designed for the protection of a very limited class of persons, owners of lots in a property registered as a strata plan
The mismanagement of the property and destruction of the value of the lot WAS precisely the harm that the Strata Schemes Management Act was designed to avoid.
But where the limits of those breaches of duty exclude a particular situation or a particular owner, the breach of duty of breach of statutory duty WAS a weapon in the owners’ options to enable enforcement of private rights given by the law.
With the new change of law
That in any event the owner was not entitled to damages for breach of statutory duty by the owner’s corporation
Jimmy said: So again, please, unless someone has a legal opinion to the contrary, can we stop arguing about the semantics and start thinking about what that means to the majority of strata owners in this state.
Jimmy I think with no damages for not following the SSM there clearly will be less care about SSM in the future. I assume the new finding does not exclude fines that at best are miniscule in comparison to the damage done.
Jimmy I think it means significantly increase of risk of diminishing the value of each individual lot and shorten the life of the property due to no damages applicable, when not maintaining the property to the standard and functionality as present when registered as a strata plan and doing un-authorised changes.
Jimmy I think the SSM would work if there were any way of enforcing it as even the basics seems currently ignored.
- The EC is a committee and anything under the name of a committee must be voted on and minuted
- Anything by the EC in the name of the owners or delegated must be in an detailed agenda to allow the owners to object prior to the vote
- A detailed budget must be produced at the AGM
- A ten year maintenance plan must be in existence that has been approved by the owners at a GM
- Owners right and when only the owners has the delegation
Frequently the EC is mentioned as the source when it never has been on the EC agenda or voted on or minuted
Frequently maintenance and changes are done without the owners being informed
At best the budget states maintenance but no detailed information is given nor the costs for items
Although an obligation since 2009 most owners has never seen a ten year budget and even less owners approved one even less seen the ongoing balance for specific maintenance saved for.
Most items that requires the owners approval is done by the EC without any information before the action
If owners was given the basic information owners would know if maintenance was carried out and the EC would be seen for all their actions and inactions.
Jimmy I think my question is how do we ensure and find out that even the basics maintenance is implemented and owners informed today, with currently no risk of damages payable by the ones breaking even the basic rules?
I am not surprised owners refuse to believe the change has occurred and I do see it as a true picture of the reaction at first I was there too and had to read the court document as I “could” not believe the true comments. And I do agree with Jimmy we should be thankful for the contribution to this site by legal people.