Disparity

I just got my latest Strata News from the sponsor and I always read the excellent training notes. This set of training notes relates to parking and roads in a strata plan. In the notes strata plans are called the 4^th level of government and it is claimed that there is a strict obligation in relation to the roads inside a strata plan.

This may well be the case but it is not the case at CTTT. I am well aware of a SCS matter that went to CTTT where there was photo after photo of potholes, ditches and poorly kept roads from inside an SP.

In the SP in question over 2km of roads was recently closed because it was too dangerous to drive on that section but that did not stop owners from driving on it. The road closure was transmitted via a scribbled notice on a chalkboard; there was no real effort to put in place a barrier to keep people out of the dangerous section. There was also a recent slip by the road side. After 3 months the EC delegated to an owner the “authority” to seek some quotes to fix it. It took a few more months before that was repaired.

I understand what the Act says, I understand what is coming out of the Supreme Court and I understand what is in the training notes. What is incomprehensible is that CTTT can make it all look like tosh compliments of decisions that do not reflect the actual obligation.

The disparity between the real world and a CTTT decision is of concern because if the SP ends up in a liability case then a poor decision of CTTT is not something an owners corporation can use to mitigate the failed obligation.

In the case in question the CTTT decision is viewed within the SP as sanctioning the state of the roads, the adjudicator used the term idealic in the case. The roads were just one of many issues in a s162 application. The application was dismissed and all the problems still exists and some have worsened.