#24382
Jimmy-T
Keymaster


    @Cosmo
    said:

    To be valid any by law would have to be enacted before or at the same time (contemporaneously) as the installation.  Owner’s who installed whirlybirds and could convince a tribunal that at the time of installation they were not advised of or aware of the whirlybird’s maintenance being their responsibility would get a ruling in their favour.

    Precedence has nothing to do with it.  If a previous EC was incompetent, then you can’t expect subsequent ECs to be stuck with having to repeat erroneous actions or lack of actions.

    If the person who installed the first whirlybird (roof-mounted, self-propelled extraction fan*) on common property without permission still owns the property, then they should be subject to the same rules.  

    If the original installer has since sold, that installation is now part of common property.

    The person installing the new dryer still has to abide by strata law (rather than by-laws, in this case) which say that you can’t change common property without permission.  Claims of precedence won’t fly. The Owner’s Corp can order him to remove the whirlybird or accept their terms for keeping it.

    As for the first whirlybird, if its current owner won’t accept responsibility for it under the same terms as the other  (new) guy then they can just insist that the original dryer be removed.

    The law is the law.  Precedence counts for little and even less if there is a strata law breach involved.

    *I only discovered what a whirlybird was later and edited this so it makes sense – JT

    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.