› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Strata Committees › No-name shame › Current Page
This is exactly the grey area I've been talking about. If someone informally approaches the EC (because they are scared) and the EC confirms that there is an issue, then they can take action without having to identify the complainant. The identity of the original complainant is irrelevant once you've established that there is a genuine problem. And I realise I may be contradicting myself here (that's why it's a grey area) but there's a difference between that and someone on the EC saying there's been a complaint when quite clearly they are using this to intimidate and harrass. How do you tell the difference? Basically, it's whether there's really a problem or not. The issue with the car a quite clearly a breach of some by-law or another and if the EC isn't prepared to back this owner, they should get off the committee and let someone with a spine take over. But then that should apply to people running Fair Trading and the CTTT. But the same kind of thing happens in houses. Friends of mine live near a house with a barking dog. When neighbours complained the dog had to be removed. Now the dog owners deliberately leave a door open so it will bang all night in the breeze. It's not strata that's the problem – it's selfish antisocial scumbags.