Complaint against building management / security

I wonder if the building has had problems with short term tenants and has decided that this is a good way to ensure that only genuine owners and tenants with valid leases have access.

Could be a good way to keep the likes of Airbnb out!

Editor’s Note:  As explained in length when you sign up to this website, we operate a “No Names” policy, mainly to allow posters to be more open about their problems while filtering out those who want to use this website to ‘name and shame’ people who have upset them. We also don’t carry the kind of insurance required to defend ourselves against legal action for defamation.  There are some serious allegations in this post that almost resulted in it being spiked completely.  But there are valid points worth repeating too.  For that reason I have removed the name of the building. If Lime2 (note the anonymity) wants to provide me with, say, $10 million worth of insurance for defamation, I will reinstate the name of the building concerned – JimmyT.  

Hi jliv,

The points that you have raised sound like {Name removed} although some other large buildings may be similar.

There are two sides to the coin.  Lax security in large city complexes often result in over tenanting, short term rentals, brothels etc.  But too draconian security or by-laws result in residents feeling like prisoners.

If you are talking about {Name removed}, I also have concerns over the privacy of information they collect.  Apart from what you mentioned of them photocopying a lot of personal documents and storing them in a cupboard under their desk, the security cards have photos on them and when you use your card to open the entrance door, your photo & name pop up on the computer screen at the reception desk.  Especially when the desk is unattended, others can look or take photos of the computer screen of the photos & names of the last couple of people who entered the building.

But my biggest issue is their constant threats to deactivate your security card and/or fine you.  Everywhere in the building (on entrance doors, on every level, in lifts etc) are unfriendly signs threatening fines for a huge number of matters – many being trivial.

All visitors must sign in on an ipad at reception and they must sign out before 2am with the security’s policy being that the residents security access card will be deactivated if the visitor doesn’t sign out by 2am and the resident being required to pay a $150 card re-activation fee.

As reported in several news articles this building has very tough security regime:

Residents have had security cards de-activated and charged $150 fines for:

• a tenant lending an access card to a visitor so the visitor could go out and buy a carton of milk;
• a tenant accidentally picking up their flatmate’s access card from the kitchen bench and using it; and
• a tenant passing their card to their boyfriend and the boyfriend swiping to let both of them in.

If I enter the building with a visitor and am required to sign them in using the ipad, I am embarrassed when security say something like “Make sure you sign out before 2am to avoid being fined”.  It is as if its back in the 1960s when non married adults of the opposite sex are judged if they stay over.

Reading the by-laws, there is nothing about guests needing to sign in visitors and/or visitors not being able to stay past 2am.

Anyway getting back to your points:

• No privacy policy: You can make a complaint to the Office of the Australian Privacy Commissioner about private entities [actually, it’s public companies … see my response below – JT] who have a turnover of more than 3 million dollars.  This building collects strata levies over $5 million annually, although I am not sure the building management company is the same entity as the entity who collects the strata levies.  More info: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-act/the-privacy-act. 
• Regarding Photo ID: Australia has no law that citizens have to have ID let alone carry photo ID. We have no national ID card and drivers licences/photo cards etc are optional.  Of course not having photo ID makes life difficult.  I believe you are well within your rights to refuse to show ID to building management.  They already have a photo of you and your name.  To be nicer you could just say that you don’t carry ID and/or you don’t have ID and that Australia doesn’t require people to have photo ID.
• If you are talking about this building, I would not complain or argue with Security over matters like their handling of Privacy. From the draconian security rules and environment they have created you will get no where.  I believe your best bet would be to read the by-laws, possibly speak to the Redfern Legal Centre who have experience helping residents take this building to NCAT and try and work out inconsistencies between the things that the building management do and the by-laws. And possibly identify illegal behavior by building management (eg. If they have non licensed security guards physically blocking entrances) .  Then make complaints to the relevant bodies possibly being Privacy Commissioner, NCAT, NSW Police Security Licensing & Enforcement Directorate (SLED) etc 
• But from my last paragraph, you probably see that it is a lot of work and effort and its probably not really worth it your only complaints are about privacy and unfriendliness.  To really make an impact if you feel strongly enough about it you would probably be better to communicate with other residents and if they agree with you to try and get many people lodging complaints with relevant bodies as this would have more of an impact.

BTW If you are talking about [a building that has featured in Press reports], feel free to PM me.

@JimmyT said:

@lime2 said:
If I enter the building with a visitor and am required to sign them in using the ipad, I am embarrassed when security say something like “Make sure you sign out before 2am to avoid being fined”.  It is as if its back in the 1960s when non married adults of the opposite sex are judged if they stay over. Reading the by-laws, there is nothing about guests needing to sign in visitors and/or visitors not being able to stay past 2am.

Owners corporations and management companies can’t issue fines, even for by-law breaches (which require a by-law in the first place).  Only NCAT can issue fines and that has to be for a breach of a by-law. However, many buildings bluff their residents by threatening fines and wheel clamping etc when they know they are not legally allowed to do so. They count on the ignorance of their residents about strata law.

Thanks JimmyT for the clarification on this. That is what I thought so I guess this building either is issuing fines illegally or have found a loophole by charging card re-activation fees etc instead of fines.  I often hear residents arguing with reception about their de-activated access cards and that it is due to them having outstanding fines/fees.   

I guess tenants may have a case for reimbursement from their landlords but this is not an ideal solution as the landlords are also powerless.

Reading something from the RLC, I have seen they have been successful in helping a tenant to get a NCAT order to have a tenants card re-activated.  But this is too much time & effort involved for most people (let alone not having your access card not working until the order is made).  So I guess most people would pay the “fine/s”.

I have read the building by-laws and whilst there is nothing in them about fines from not signing out visitors by 2am, they do mention fees for having someone else use a residents access card.  I have put the by-law below. Do you think its legal?

(a) ensuring that such key, card and/or device is not given to any person unless
written approval is obtained from the executive committee or a delegate of
the Executive Committee;

(b) ensuring that, without the prior written approval of the Executive Committee,
no duplicate of the key, card and/or device is made; and

(c) not disposing of the key, card and/or device otherwise than by delivering
it/them to the Executive Committee or a delegate of the Executive
Committee.

(d) Notwithstanding sub-clause (9) hereof, if any owner or occupier does not
comply with this sub-clause in any respect then the Executive Committee or
a delegate of the Executive Committee may immediately de-activate the
key, card and/or device and may charge a fee not exceeding $250 to
re-activate or re-instate the key, card and/or device.

(e ) Any action taken by the Executive Committee or delegate pursuant to this
sub-clause for a breach does not preclude the Owners’ Corporation or
Executive Committee or delegate from seeking any other remedy for any
breach.

Agree Jimmy T, but what’s keeping the BM honest in all this… after all, an on-site BM who rents out units would most likely allow his ‘tenants’ move freely without any stringent checks… otherwise they would lose expensive rents!

I have witnessed this before with unruly tenants treating schemes like a ‘funhouse’, all the while the BM claiming they cannot do anything about their owner residents! I’d personally prefer council had added power to pacify a BM if they were found to be encouraging interference with the peaceful enjoyment by other residents!

JT – I would be very interested in your advice in tackling a BM in the above situation who may be ‘protected’ by a rusted-on EC member that also gains a benefit (conflict of interest) through the BM renting their property out!

Hi Whale, not got a response yet from my Strata Manager but been told to just renew proceedings and have it dealt with anew. I don’t want the hassle of going through this again, but might have to. Anyhow, that’s for all your help so far.

i promise I’ll respond when I get something back either way!