#24387
Cosmo
Flatchatter

    @JimmyT said:


    @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 (Clothes dryer??) 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 dryer or accept their terms for keeping it.

    As for the first dryer, 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.

    Regarding Jimmy’s quote of my response … upon reflection I have changed my view. He is correct and me wrong *guilty smile*.

    My statement re the by law having to be passed “at the same time” as the installation should say that if the owner who did the installation still owns the property. 

    Otherwise you would have the impractical and absurd situation where a current owner could avoid responsibility by hiding changes to common property.