- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Unfortunately effective actions by my managing agent has brought vested interests out of the woodwork. Upgrading security has become a threat to their serial and deliberate actions that result in extreme overcrowding, the associated costs, health and safety that entails. I believe factions are being drawn together to overthrow the current agent and no doubt install one more pliable and possibly in cahoots with these vested interests.
It is a challenge that is quite difficult to ward off as there are many overseas landlords who would probably be quite unaware how their apartments are being used as a business venture. As has been often stated it is an area difficult to police, through access restrictions and obstruction from those complicit, including rental agents who give themselves good reason to (probably illegally)ignore their responsibilities.
It is disappointing to say the least to see these powerful interests at play and I feel somewhat hamstrung as to what actions those relatively small number of owner occupiers can take. Even trying to communicate with overseas interests is largely a lost cause as their supposed interests are often managed by these same agents here.
Indicative evidence can be gathered eg disproportionate number of accesses to the building, security diversions attempted, building materials and furniture regularly brought into the apartment, evidence from trade people who had cause to enter apartments.
Alas it is another story of woe. I just hope I don’t have to witness those 12 kids in two bedroom apartments befall to some tragedy. In the meantime, I will have to turn my mind to see how like minded owners can defend against any plans these peddlers have from installing their own stooge as managing agent.
Any ideas from dear readers, aside from those well beaten paths to Fair Trading and CTTT? I would like to think the Fire Brigade would have a reasonable interest, but with coercive powers unknown. REINSW is a possibility, if they are a member, though difficult to present a case without a determination made on overcrowding. I ponder my optons
-
Replies
-
Interesting topic – it raises a broader issue that I believe councils turn a blind eye to.
Firstly, on your topic regarding vested interests – this is a problem I have come up against – a builder/developer who is also an owner trying to stymie a defect rectification process by approaching and trying to convince owners that he is correct – he is persuasive, and also, dare I say it, plays a race card (this was explicitly mentioned in a CTTT ruling). He almost won motions on proxy in an AGM doing this.
On the issue regarding overcrowding, I recall seeing this when inspecting apartments in inner and close to inner Sydney. My wife and I noticed 8-10 beds in a number of two bedroom apartments. This would earn the landlord ~$1,000/week, instead of ~500 for a normal rental. In Pyrmont I see adverts pinned to lampposts advertising “beds” and not rooms.
I understand there are occupancy rules regarding number of occupants in an apartment, but I think the authorities do turn a blind eye to this, partly due to the shortage of affordable accommodation, possibly largely for students near the universities.
If the authorities were serious about stopping this it would be easy – send a stooge to inspect “for sale” or “rooms for rent” and take note of any irregularities! But it doesn’t seem to happen.
There is also the annual fire inspection, but warning is given for these.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.