Mr Strata – Being that you have not yet looked at the safety netting how is it possible for you to claim categorically that the water proof membrane has been breached?
Why is it not feasible for the Committee to allow Nettie to retain this netting on a temporary basis until her children have reached an appropriate age?
This is a novel case, the type of case which has not been adjudicated previously by NCAT. There is no precedent for which your Committee can rely upon to guarantee success.
It has been proven time and time again that Committee decisions are not always correct decisions.
If you are confident in your position then your Committee is entitled to take this matter further. There is no guarantee however that your Committee will win this dispute at NCAT. Nettie may be successful. Nettie also appears to have ‘professional advice’ on her side.
You claim that Nettie is not heeding your professional advice. However, Nettie’s ‘professional advice’ that she has provided to the Committee is apparently not being heeded by the Committee.
BCA balcony heights are a minimum height requirement. They can always be made higher. The new window regulations require that windows less than 1.7m above the internal floor level require locks. Clearly there is a difference between the safety regulations for balcony heights and safety regulations for windows. Isn’t it better to be “safe than sorry”?
If this case progresses to NCAT then this case will be on the record for ever more for all future owners of Lots within your building, (and all the world), to peruse when undertaking their due diligence.
Are you quite certain that you would want your names attached to a proposal that would see child safety given a lower priority than a somewhat subjective claim of ‘visibility’. Is this really how you and the other committee members would like to be remembered?