• This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 months ago by .
Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #61792
    kaindub
    Flatchatter

    What a wonderful idea

    EXCEPT

    Whilst a by law may exist, residents and managers can’t enforce them on the spot. One needs an order from NCAT to do that.
    Where the contravention is behavioural, the miscreant has probably departed long before the matter is heard.

    Its really annoying, but in my opinion bylaws regulating some behaviours are just not worth the paper they are written on, as enforcement is entirely impractical.

     

    #61794
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    Its really annoying, but in my opinion bylaws regulating some behaviours are just not worth the paper they are written on, as enforcement is entirely impractical.

    I hear you but I’m interested in how different people respond to by-laws, regardless of how robust and enforceable they are legally.

    My view (based on zero quantitative research) is that most people when made aware of a by-law will comply with it.

    Some people will ignore by-laws until they get a warning or Notice To Comply, and they will then pull their heads in.

    A minority , for whatever reason – and I would suspect bolshiness rather than a sophisticated understanding of strata law –  will allow the matter to proceed to NCAT in the hope that they don’t get fined.

    As for those who have moved on by the time the tribunal’s wheels have ground into action, well, at least they are no longer in the block and causing problems.

    Which makes me wonder if there is any sanction against landlords who don’t take any responsibility for the calibre of tenants they introduce to strata schemes.  Probably not, but worth a thought.

    #61795
    Sir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    I agree with JT that by-laws (aka Rules or Articles elsewhere) can be useful as a statement about agreed expected behaviour. Even when difficult to enforce, they can be useful.

    It is not so different from the situation in the wider world. Most people, most of the time could easily get away with doing all sorts of things that are illegal but the mere fact of the illegality provides considerable deterrent.

    #61807
    kaindub
    Flatchatter

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting it’s impossible.

    However the days when you could register a bylaw for some $130 is passed, since we went to PEXA.

    it’s now nearer to $500 and if you get a lawyer to draft the bylaw you’re over $1000.

    I think it’s irresponsible for the OC to spend money on bylaws which are mere paper.

    If I recall correctly, Amanda Farmer suggested that there was a way to write a bylaw that referred to a schedule of rules. Since the schedule of rules is unregulated, the schedule can be changed even by the committee without requiring registration.

    Maybe if Amanda reads this she can confirm or deny.

    #61819
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    I hadn’t really thought of the cost aspect, I must confess.  Those fees are a real deterrent against by-law changes (which may be a good or bad thing).

    I think the schedule of rules idea is good, Something like “Residents must abide by the rules relating to the use of [insert facility here] which may be changed from time to time as minuted by the strata committee and posted on the notice board.”

    The problem with that is that residents can say they didn’t see the latest update. Incredible as it may seem, I recall tenants being let off with a failure to comply with a Notice To Comply because they said they weren’t aware of the by-law even though it was included in the NTC (as it must be).

    Of course, if you were using unenforceable by-laws to deter bad behaviour, you wouldn’t need to register them as they are unenforceable anyway.

    And if you’re saying that even enforceable by-laws can be a waste of time (in your previous post) I have to ask, what’s the point?

    #61820
    Sir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    We had a rules review some years ago since many of our rules adopted decades earlier were no longer relevant or had been superseded by provisions in the Act. We had a strata lawyer assist in this. One of the suggested rules was as follows:

    “(1)     The Owners Corporation (OC) may adopt by special resolution House Rules that shall be interpreted and adopted by the OC with the same force as the Rules of the OC.

    (2)      The House Rules are not OC Rules and shall only explain how the OC Rules shall operate.

    (3)      The Executive Committee shall have the power to enforce the policies in the House Rules adopted by the OC.”

    This would let us tweak the details of some of our existing rules but it would still need a special resolution of a general meeting, not just the whim of the committee, to be enforceable.  We have not made use of this rule. However, I imagine that it could be used to add specifics and detail to some of the generic default rules about not causing nuisance, excessive noise, interfering with ‘reasonable use and enjoyment of the common property’ etc. without the bother of registering a new specific rule.

    #61871
    pisces
    Flatchatter

    I wish we had a bylaw where we could pass on charges that were generated by spurious claims, it might make people think twice before a callout fee is generated only for the technician to find no apparent problem.  For example when a resident claims there is something wrong with his telephone connection, complains to the Strata Manager who sends out a comms technician to test the line only to find ($500 later) that there’s no fault!!! We are constantly haemorrhaging funds because people think it’s a fun sport to make the Strata do stuff and pass on costs that are rightfully the occupants responsibility. Grrr 🙁

    #61939
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    There’s a very interesting article on our sponsors Bannermans website about unenforceable by-laws, specifically the those that NCAT ruled out of order in a dispute over short-term letting.

    The by-laws that were knocked over concerned the right to cancel access to the properties and charging the breaching owners costs.

Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.