- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I have been accused in the past of being unfair to the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. Considering I have described them as clowns and their processes as ‘chocolate wheel decision-making’, their complaints may be justified.
The CTTT is where you go to resolve problems in your strata building when the obligatory mediation at Fair Trading fails.
Your initial presentation is done on paper – an adjudicator looks at all the facts in writing and then issues a ruling.
If either side is unhappy, you go to a full hearing where you may be lucky and get someone who understands how strata works.
Or you could get a time-server who decides he or she is going rewrite the law on the fly. Hence the ‘chocolate wheel’ comment.
The great hope offered by the CTTT was its intention to be a low-cost, lawyer-free common sense purveyor of simple solutions to tricky strata problems.
It’s great failing has been that it has evolved into a daunting and illogical tangle of loose legal interpretation and rigid rules, where anyone who thinks of pursuing a case without professional advice needs their head examined.
Strata residents who’ve been verbally abused and threatened with violence have been denied a hearing because they’ve left one piece of paper at home.
Meanwhile serial complainers drive strata owners insane and suck their buildings’ funds dry, because the CTTT can’t find a way of not being used as a weapon with which the permanently disgruntled can bully their neighbours.
Frustratingly, the CTTT is allowed to award costs in cases of vexatious complaints (and only then) but they almost never do.
But at last there’s a chance to do something about this. The Law And Justice Committee of the State Parliament’s Legislative Council is looking at various tribunals, including the CTTT, with a view to changing the way they work and possibly merging them.
You’ve got until November 25 to make submissions about your experiences and opinions of the CTTT. Phone Rachel Callinan on 9230 2976 or go HERE where you’ll find links to all the information you need.
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.
-
Replies
-
Jimmy wrote:
So at the the risk of banging the same old drum again, here in no particular order and based on six years of emails to the Flat Chat column and postings on the website, are what we reckon the main issues are.- Lack of consistency and clarity in decisions
- Too much red tape
- Inability to award costs against serial offenders
- Inability to award costs against serial nuisance complainers
Number 4 bothers me. I am aware of one poster on this forum who has made application after application relating to the management of his block. The poster claims the biggest problem in his building is the dominant figure on the EC. This dominant figure happens to be a CTTT member.
I have inadvertently met this CTTT member and i have on my travels also run into people from the block of units in questions. If I believe the CTTT member then the owner (the poster) is a serial nuisance; if i believe the owners i have talked to then CTTT is corrupt and the member runs the units very poorly.
The block in question is currently trying to have ordered management put in place – how will it look if CTTT order management because a CTTT member was not running the block satisfactorily or meeting the requirements of the Act? (I can't see that ever happening and from what i have read on the posts about the matter, CTTT will not let that happen.)
The point is; is the person (the poster) from this block a serial nuisance? I do not think so, some of the owners in his block do not think so but the CTTT member running the block thinks so and CTTT may also think so.
I will mention that when i talked to the CTTT member he had no idea he was the focus of a topic on this forum. From what he told me i would have no hesitation in saying he is not overly compliant with all aspects of the Act – by his own comments it was clear he does not always strictly follow what the Act says. Interestingly the CTTT member has not lost a case to the “serial nuisance” yet.
Here is my point. Over the last 18 months i have come to the conclusion that about 90% of the Strata Schemes Management Act does not genuinely need to be strictly followed. It is not until failures or lack of compliance starts leading to disadvantage or loss that CTTT feel inclined to act. Failure that are, according to CTTT, of little or no real consequence are not matters CTTT are interested in.
Point 4 above says that there should be an ability to award costs against serial nuisance complainers. A serial complainer could simply be someone who has read the SSMA and takes issue with the lack of compliance in their block. The matters they raise may be innocuous to CTTT but my experience is that innocuous failure lead to serious failures. Non compliance becomes a culture which can lead to unnecessary expenses to the owners and can also seriously devalue a block.
I have watched a presentation from Michael Teys (Teys Lawyers – one of the forums sponsors) in which Michael talks about something as innocent as not holding an AGM within the time frame specified by the Act. This is the type of innocuos indiscretion CTTT is not interested in but is someone who raises several cases relating to multiple equivalent “trivial” issues really a serial nuisance complainer or just someone who wants good compliance?
The current topic found on the home page of Flat Chat is where i lifted the opening comment from Jimmy. The comments go on to imply by-laws should be respected but i feel that it isn't just by-laws that should mean what they say and get respected for it – the SSMA gets little respect from countless SP's (the Flat-chat forum is testimony to that).
I understand where point 4 above is coming from but it is also very dangerous as long as compliance to the SSMA is not considered a priority by the overseeing jurisdiction (CTTT).
Thank you for expressing your concern BB.
How is it that a CTTT member is able to be involved in any decision involving his/her building?
How long is “tenure” on the CTTT?
How do people get appointed/elected, and how are they removed, especially if they show bias or if they are not a good representative of most Owners?
JimmyT said:
FlatChatFan – I don't think BB is saying this member adjudicates on actions brought against him; just that the fact that he is a member of the CTTT means that he can't lose (BB will correct me if I'm wrong)…………….
We have to balance the right to a fair result with all strata owners' rights to choose how imperfect their world is …….
Jimmy is right, the member (M) in question does not sit on his own cases but it has been said that the member (M) talks to other members (including the member, or adjudicator, hearing the cases that the member (M) is respondent in). It is also said the member (M) has convinced other members there is no problem in “his” SP except a serial complainer but from what some of the residents say that is not the case.
I have a little trouble with the idea that the owners have a right to choose how imperfect their world is. It creates a great deal of diversity in how well Strata Plans (SPs) are run depending on how lay-back the “majority” allow it to be. It also makes it hard to know what someone is buying into.
I know a buyer can do strata searches and get pre-pruchase reports, and the like, but these enquiries do not always reveal the underlying culture in an SP.I prefer the idea the Strata Act is applicable to every SP; i.e if the Act says something is required it should be the case that every SP that that rule is applicable to does follow the rule — and CTTT enforce the rule.
Giving SP's a choice of how imperfect they want to be is not what CTTT says in some cases;
“The legislation has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners for their own benefit. Even with the involvement of professional strata managers, achieving managerial perfection is not easy. Mistakes are made. The important thing is that they are recognised and not repeated. “
J Bordon: Nulama Village P/L v Owners Strata Plan 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2006] NSWCTTT 550 (25 September 2006)To me the above says that the same rules apply to everyone and everyone should at least be trying to meet with them.
“More commonly than otherwise, members of Owners Corporations are laypeople. They, just as the very few who would be lawyers, must provide proper management of a strata scheme.”
G Durie; Senior Member CTTT. Bushby v Owners Corporation SP 64939 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2009] NSWCTTT 70 (25 February 2009)Again it seems that the same “standard” is applicable to all SP's and it is not for SP's to choose how imperfect they want to be. I could cut and paste CTTT quotes all day. I could revisit 2005 when the legislation regarding sinking funds was changed primarily to stop SP's choosing not to plan for the future. Historically it can be seen that owners do not regularly make good choices for financial reasons, for friendship reasons, for power reasons …. and so on.
The idea of giving laypeople and the ignorant the option to choose their level of imperfection is not a good idea. If owners have the right to choose how imperfect their SP is then there is no real framework for the whole concept of strata; there are just a whole bunch of little kingdoms in which the subjects set their own level.
I think most SP give compliance to the Strata Act a good go and do a half decent job. An effort that keeps the owners out of potential trouble. I think if one looks at these SP's there is a genral pattern of doing the same thing; i.e. they are not all doing their own thing, not setting their own level, not choosing their own level of imperfection. They are all shooting for the same thing – responsible, compliant, managment.
There is the need for some autonomy in SP's but choosing how imperfect they want to be should not be within the power of SP's. I believe the power to make by-laws applicable to the particular type of SP is power enough for owners corporations.
Just how much an SP should be allowed to get away with is a very debatable subject.
I have been having a look at some of the published submissions to the Standing Committee :
One thing a lot of submissions have in common is the idea CTTT are not very good at what they are doing, regardless of which CTTT division one is talking about. That should come as no real surpise to Flat-chat readers.
What i found interesting is that there is no submission from anyone named Jimmy T – unless it is one of the confidential ones or one of the name has been withheld submissions.
Also interesting was that SCA (Strata Community Australia (NSW)) support a new super tribunal provided ……
I can see someone getting up in Parliamnet saying SCA support the idea and not making any mention of the “conditions” that SCA feel are needed if a Super Tribunal is created.
I would ask that SCA looks back at the old Strata Schemes Board and its record. It was not as rubbish as CTTT so i would then ask does SCA really believe a newer Super Tribunal would improve things given the last Super Tribunal (CTTT) only made matter worse.
I appreciate what SCA are saying and believe if the conditions they talk about were implemented then a new Super Tribunal might be an improvement but who actually believes the conditions would be implemented.
What i completely agree with is the strata division becomes a specialist area. This same idea is promoted in several other submissions and across various other divisions of CTTT. It seems people want CTTT members to be specialists in specific areas and the specific areas to be specific.
Isn't it curious that it was, in a way, specialist areas that all got put together to create CTTT; now people want to somewhat segregate the divisions within the CTTT. It seems the “Super Tribunal” (CTTT) is not so super.
I recommend browsing some of the submissions – they are interesting.
I found it interesting that there are some submissions that say little more than “i do not support the concept of a super tribunal”. Some other submissions are 50 pages. I just thought Jimmy T, “the only credible show in town”, might have expressed a view … no need to write a book.
I am yet to read anything in this forum on whether you support a super tribunal or not; but then i do not read everything.
The standing committee did not selectively seek the opinion of SCA, OCN, or CTTT yet these groups make submissions, the Law Society of NSW and many others made submissions. None of these opinions were selectively sought. Standing committees call for submissions, they do not personally ask anyone even if they are the only credible show in town; whose influence motivates the Minister.
They ask everyone and you were included in the open invitation. To be honest i thought the most credible show in town would have had something to say about it. You as much as anyone know how these things work; better to say something even if it is as simple as “yes i support” or “no i do not support”.
I feel this forum is one of the better strata forums and can understand your desire to comment at a latter date without any hint of sour grapes – hence no Jimmy T submission, fair enough, but given your opinions are so widely known then won't people think any negative commentary you do make in a future comment is just some sort of sour grapes anyway?
May you have success skinning the “strata cat” your way.
I think your personal idea is worth a go … i also think other options are also worth ago.
We all seem to agree that change is in order. The new “super tribunal” idea is about potentially incorporating CTTT into something even bigger.
Most submissions either opposed the idea or thought the idea would only work under certain circumstances; those circumstances were generally about having specialists deal with specific areas.
I recommend you have a look at the SCA submission. It was far from what i expected from the peak management group but it did recommend that the strata division be specialized.
What i found interesting about the specializing strata idea is that some of the current CTTT member are from the former strata schemes board and these are some of the Adjudicators/Members i have seen make terrible statements and rulings.
I agree that in some (possibly many) cases a strata savvy EC member/good strata manager & strata lawyer would be much better at dealing with strata matters.
One thing i will say is that i know of some SP's who have entrenched EC members who have served (self-served some might say) for many years and these people have a very poor knowledge of the Strata Act (SSMA).
I am also well aware of some pretty ordinary strata managers; i have no idea how these people get or keep their licenses.Keep skinning the proverbial strata cat Jimmy T
I wish I had found Flat Chat sooner than now. My experiences with the CTTT system are obviously not uncommon. I have been involved with presenting three applications to the CTTT and responding to one from the owners corporation. In each case, the Adjudicator sided with the majority of owners regardless that the owners corporation were not following the Strata Rules and regulations. Some of the cases put to the CTTT included, the owners corporation do not follow the council planning permissions for the development and the registered strata plan, the executive committee built infrastructure over owner car spaces without their written permissions by lodging DA's with council for infrastructure to be built over owner's lots (not common property) and did not disclose the relevant owners details in the applications. They also brought in a By Law that is in breach of other laws. All applications were dismissed by the CTTT.
In the application to revoke a By Law case, the Adjudicator's order was solely based on another matter all together and he included examples and quotes from another matter lodged by the owners corporation in regard to the non compliance to a By Law that was overturned by the residing Member months before.
I have sent a number of complaints about the basis of the Adjudicator's decision, to the Chair person for the CTTT and her response is that the matter has been dismissed and no other action can be taken. She has completely overlooked the complaint about the Adjudicator's conduct in basing his decision, not on the application before him but on another matter all together. He also thought being personal and insulting about the applicant in his orders that were published to all the owners, was relevant and in order.
When this matter was then heard by the residing Member at a hearing, the Member saw that the By Law was unlawful as it breached another law but dismissed the application based on a precedent she had heard about for a commercial strata property and applied that precedent to this matter.
Surely, if a precedent is to be admitted to a hearing, it should be lodged by one of the parties and not by the residing Member who is suppose to be unbiased.
If the CTTT is to only side with a majority, not look toward addressing matters to resolve issues and to look for precedents from past cases, then there will always be complaints and problems in the strata world with this public service department.Bongo drum said:
….
I have sent a number of complaints about the basis of the Adjudicator’s decision, to the Chair person for the CTTT and her response is that the matter has been dismissed and no other action can be taken. She has completely overlooked the complaint about the Adjudicator’s conduct in basing his decision, not on the application before him but on another matter all together. He also thought being personal and insulting about the applicant in his orders that were published to all the owners, was relevant and in order.
Your comments reflect many of my own personal experiences with CTTT.
I often wonder why a CTTT adjudicator makes comment there are no or only a few supporting submissions in a matter … it is as if applications are a numbers games and the content is some what secondary.
I have wondered did the adjudicator even read my application given the reasons seem to deal with secondary or irrelevant matters.
I to have made several complaints about the performance of some members and every time i get the standard reply about me not being happy with the decision. I write back stating i am happy with the decision and reiterate my concerns and i get another reply about me not being happy with the decision … i often wonder if i am dealing with people who can read. Funny enough the case i made most complaints about was a case where i got a favorable decision yet it got to the point where CTTT refused to correspond on the matters i was raising.
CTTT are a problem. I hope you can find time to follow the links to the consultation pages that are dealing with comments from the public about strata reform and share your experience at CTTT with the “think tank”.
Click HERE
Thanks for the responce BB. I think we all should keep sending emails to the chairpersons to respond to. I my case, I will be doing just that until she address the complaint on it's basis. I have done this three times to date and will be sending another soon. She keeps sending the same reworded responce every time so hopefully she will see that this enquiry will not go away until she addresses the matter correctly. A copy to the minister for Fair Trading will be my next target as well.
Have registered with the Open Forum as suggested.
I have totally given up on the CTTT. The tribunal members, like the magistrates of our local courts, appear to me to be incredibly out of touch with reality & the community they are supposed to be serving.
My examples are many & the situations are almost unbelieveable (as many people inform me).
In future, I will be dealing with any strata issues myself even if it breaches the Act because I have witnessed first hand, many times, there are little consequences, if any.
Many, if not all, of the by-laws are meaningless & practicaly unenforceable & therefore, not worth a thing.
Every managing agent I have known (& there’s been a few) are lacking in a number of ways.
It is simply not worth the time, money & effort to go through the proper channels in strata. I write this after 9 years of attempting to do so.
I do not recommend living in a strata property at all.
VNL, with regard to the performance (or lack thereof) of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT), my experience with the Strata Division is very similar to yours, although I had two (2) wins out of five (5) hearings once I eventually negotiated the adjudication talk-fest.
Even then however, in both instances the residents in breach of our Plan’s By-Laws didn’t comply with Orders, and based upon uncollected mail left behind when one of those was eventually persuaded to vacate, didn’t make penalty payments either.
As I can’t afford to deposit $1M to Jimmy T’s lawsuit fund, I’ll limit my observations to the suggestion that members of quasi legal organisations such as those dealing with strata, industrial relations, and planning matters (where I’ve also had some less than memorable experiences) didn’t all gain appointment to their positions on the basis of their legal knowledge or even their practical knowledge of the matters they adjudicate upon.
Yet even on the basis of my own experiences and my appreciation of your frustrations with the CTTT, I will never concede that circumventing their system or any other is a means to overcome its shortcomings, rather it merely makes those who put it in place think that it’s all okey-dokey.
So what to do?
Well, it seems to me that as Minister Roberts (Fair Trading) seems fair-dinkum about his Government’s Review of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act, and as there were earlier balloons flown by the Premier about “rationalising” the locations of the CTTT (at least), that a Submission to that Review and a letter to the Minister about the latter in your case would be well received.
I’ve done both of the above, and suggested amongst other things that Owners Corporations (O/C) should be regarded as “persons” in the Tenancy Division of the CTTT and thereby be able to bring actions to terminate the Leases of unruly tenants, and that O/Cs should be able to issue prescribed penalties to residents who breach By-Laws, and suffer the consequences of not following procedures and thereby getting it wrong.
No response from the Minister on my personal representation, but I’m confident that I’ll receive something; eventually.
I hear you VNL. I too am dissolusioned with strata. It is not what iblieved it should be. We have by laws that residents have to follow, but there is nothing to compel an EC/OC to actually apply the by laws. Though they can pick and choose which by laws they do apply.
I wanted the protection that I thought by laws afforded me. I follow the rules and regulations. And yet I am surrounded by people who do their own thing with impunity. But if I want to put down floorboards or a new kitchen I have to ask/advise or I am in breach of. And despite letting others get away with breeches, they an find me in breach of if they want to.
Not to mentions he fact that they EC isn’t doing any repairs despite being advised of problems by me. But they aren’t responsible for maintenance. The OC is, of which I am a memberr of and I, the only one who follows the rules, has advised the EC but despite me being on the OC iand therefore responsible for repairs i can’t get the repairs done because the SM will only act on the direction of the EC, who aren’t directing anyone, not the SM to do repairs and not the residents who are in breach of. But the EC arent responsible for maintenance. It’s me snd the rest of the OC who is!
Of course i can take these matters further to fair trading and CTTT. So here I am, dumb bunny, does the right thing, and has to spend own time and energy and maybe even money taking action to get done what should be done in strata without question. Otherwise why have by laws? Why have the act? If no one has to make anyone follow them, why have them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.