Of course I was not there. I cannot know if these residents were entirely reasonable or louder than they thought. Having said that, I am all too familiar with the letter from an owner who speaks in the plural on behalf of ‘many concerned residents’ while actually only speaking for herself. It is a common affectation to assume the mantle of speaking for all the right-thinking people in the development. I find it quite plausible that CBR has encountered a ‘noise nazi’. While it is true that a tenant is bound by the same Rules (ACT-speak for By-laws) as owners, enforcing those Rules would require an EC to be prepared to take the matter seriously enough to issue a Breach Notice and then be prepared to further act to take the matter to the ACAT (ACT equivalent of CTTT) if they thought you had failed to act on the notice by not ceasing to disturb other residents. Then it would go to a mediated ‘preliminary conference’ before going further. If the police had attended more than once and found a riotous party going on there would be a case to make. If, as CBR says, the police were called several times but found nothing unreasonable there is no case and some evidence that there is no case to be made and the breach notice is unreasonable. I would take note of the days on which the police found nothing going on.