› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Power grab to support land grab. › Current Page
Technically and legally your views are probably correct. At the moment it appears the owner is getting his way by bluster and harvesting proxies. Because the paving was laid before his time I can understand his anger. He obviously thought he brought the paving when he purchased.
The owner should be allowed the opportunity to put his views and reasoning. I had a similar issue regarding parking and while technically and legally I was wrong after putting my views to the OC it was accepted that in practical terms ‘there was no nuisance’ nor was ‘anyone else denied the use of common property’.
My view is that to make any decision to overturn his ‘garden paving’ the OC needs to ensure certain processes are gone thru and are transparent. The widely used legal term is “due process” and the OC needs to make sure he is afforded this.
I don’t think he can be asked to step down. By its very nature all EC members have some interest in decisions. At very best a recommendation could be put to the OC that his votes not be counted on this issue (but that needs a vote too imo).
The EC or OC does need to vote on the removal of the paving. If it is so obvious that the paving has to go take it to a vote either an AGM or otherwise and explain the reasons.
Lobby other like minded owners prior to any vote, explain why the paving should go and how the legislation etc prohibits the paving from being there.