JimmyT said:
And let's create a “move on or move out” ruling – if someone has more than, say, three goes at their Owners Corporation, they can't come back to the CTTT for a year. If life in their building is so bad, they should move out.
Move where; to another bad building, and another and another until one finds a decent one that could then degrade to become a bad one because three spins of the chocolate wheel means it is time to move out. I do not think a three strikes clause is a good idea.
Remove the so called “Super Tribunal” from the equation.
CTTT dealt with just over 1450 applications in 2009/10. There are roughly 260 working days in a year. That is 5.5 cases per working day.
Strata is only 2.5% of the CTTT cases load and so there is no real incentive for professional development in that particular area. It is not cost effective.
Detach strata from the general day to day cases of CTTT and make it a specialist arm of CTTT instead of something Members deal with outside of their ordinary day of Tenancy and Retail matters.
IF a Strata specific arm was set up;
- using just 2% of the CTTT annual budget (based on the 2009/10 CTTT report) and
- a $10 government levy, per unit, for SP’s over 50 units – payable to the new strata specific arm by each OC after each AGM – required by new legislation.
THEN a strata specific body could have all the infrastructure of CTTT but it also has over $1,000,000 per year to be strata specific with.
For over a million dollars a year can a group of people specialising in strata deal with less than 6 matters a day?
If a million isn't enough then how much would it cost to have specialists deal with 6 matters a day?
Legislation should be modified to make decisions set precedents for other matters at that level until an actual court ruling sets a real legal precedent. (End the lottery and make outcomes more predictable)
Given the repeat nature of many cases by creating a standard it would mean many cases might never occur and some that do would be determined much quicker.