• Creator
    Topic
  • #8885
    ccbaxter
    Flatchatter

      Every week a thoughtful friend of mine, who lives in a strata as I do, forwards an e-newsletter he receives from a law firm specializing in the strata living. It contains links to tweets, video lectures, lecture notes, a blog etc.

      I have become more than a bit suspicious over time, that some of this law firms opinions expressed in a rather pompous fashion, may I say, are a bit self-serving.

      Quite often they express the opinion that there should be ‘flexibility’ and less rules in strata, not more, and all of us living in strata will be all-the-better for it. This is not the experience in the strata where I live. We have had a bunch of inexperienced ‘kids’ with a laissez-faire attitude running our strata for three years now and things have gone downhill considerably in terms of lifestyle, the strata’s appearance and community relations.

      The prevailing feeling is, nobody cares and it’s a free-for-all. Anything goes. The best example I can give which is apparent as any visitor approaches is, there’s crap in every foyer, the noticeboard’s a mess and the gardens look like crap.

      I go for ‘Zero Tolerance’ or close to it. I think more ‘flexibility’ in enforcing rules will just create a lot more work for the lawyers, in the final analysis.

      This week’s epistle, or blog, from the lawyer’s newsletter follows. Are you with me or agin me?

      Heading: Flexibility in Strata Communities.

      In enforcing community rules, reasonably a degree of flexibility is required. Every so often some officious looking strata chairperson will be interviewed on a current affairs show about his or her efforts to evict a fish. Typically there will have been a problem in the community about animals and upon checking the by-laws, it becomes clear all animals are banned. Someone works out a fish is an animal and knows that the fellow who voted against them at the last meeting and took an unpopular position on the animal issue is secretly harbouring a single goldfish in a bowl on his mantle piece. The ‘rules are the rules’ approach to the interpretation of by-laws is taken and support grows for the deportation of the fish. On a ‘matter of principle’ a breach notice is issued and before we know it the talk shows and the radio ‘shock jocks’ have made a story out of the fish, the apartment block and the crazy things that people do to each other when reasonable people sit by and fail to put the extremists back in their place. Every set of laws has some antiquated provisions and unintentional consequences if interpreted literally. A good test for when some flexibility is required is to imagine how the public will react to your side of the story when it goes to air.

    Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #18751
      Kangaroo
      Flatchatter

        My Mum told me to strike a happy medium.

        But they always saw it coming.

        #18756
        struggler
        Flatchatter

          For me it’s not a matter of being more flexible, but decided on whether you want to have and enforce by laws or not.

          I don’t believe that you can enforce one by law but turn a blind eye to another.  It should be like the three musketeers – all for one and one for all.  If one person breaches a by law and gets a notification, then everyone should as well and all should support this.

          I have a friend who, on moving into his apartment, was immediately told that he could not have his pet.  He had followed all the protocols before buying and the complex had the “not unreasonably denied” by law in place for pets.  They took him to mediation and then the CTTT.  But did they take action against the residents parking in visitors spots continuously or on common property in general.  No.  Just him and the pet by law.  So my friend who parked in the right spot but has a pet gets hauled over the coals but those who don’t have pets but park where they like get off without even a notice let alone the CTTT?  They are both by laws.  Just make up your mind.  Either have by laws and enforce them all, or don’t do anything – ever.

          But if you want to live in a lawless strata then go ahead.  In my complex, in the past people came here to buy or rent and commented on how nice it looked.  They could park in the visitors spots no problem to go to the open houses.  Of course it looked good.  Of course they could park.  Everyone obeyed the by laws and those who didn’t were gently reminded and pulled into line.  But then those same people moved in and wanted to do whatever they wanted and change everything.  Without permission.  Without punishment.  Without consideration.  

          With these people constantly challenging and wanting everything to their own liking, we also have those who point out one resident breaking a by law but not another and seem to ignore that they themselves are in breach.  We have an EC who issues notices to some but not to others and definitely not to themselves.  The inconsistency in enforcing, or even noticing, has lead to this complex not looking so good anymore.  Some might say shabby.  Not so neat anymore,  Not so orderly.

          So its not about flexibility for me it’s more about fairness.  It’s about giving someone a chance to redeem themselves if they do the wrong thing.  It’s about taking action against those who think they are more important than others and can do what they like.  It’s about consistency and making up your mind whether you want to enforce by laws or not.  Or even have them.  Mix in with the above a bit of common sense and there’s your flexibility.  It’s not rocket science, it’s just strata.  All for one and one for all.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

          #18757
          scotlandx
          Strataguru

            To me, the guiding principle is what is in the interests of the owners corporation as a whole, i.e. the owners as a collective.  So:

            – if you have a by-law in relation to pets requiring that permission be obtained, permission should be obtained.  That permission should not be unreasonably withheld, if that is how the by-law works.  This gives all the owners certainty.

            If you are in a small building with a common courtyard, then it may be unreasonable for someone to keep three great danes.  

            – if someone wants to do work that affects the common property, they must seek permission from the OC, and a by-law be put in place.  This protects the interests of the other owners.

            – if someone wants to do renovations that don’t affect common property, then they should notify the OC and seek permission in relation to the hours of work and tradesmen accessing the property.  They should also provide an assurance that the works they are undertaking do not affect the common property.

            – by-laws in relation to parking areas should be enforced consistently for everyone across the board.

            Going back to ccbaxter’s question, the problem with flexibility is it means different things to different people.  The fish example is just silly.  If an EC/OC applies the by-laws consistently they promote certainty and protect the interests of the owners as a whole.  If a by-law is considered unreasonable or pointless, then the owners can change it or get rid of it.

            #19244

            I agree with the original post & like the replies. Personally, I have found that unless you want to spend time & energy regularly, at best – negotiating & at worst – arguing with other owners/tenants who come & go regarding each matter they want to raise (usually, in their own best interests rather than for all) & then dealing with the results of the ‘deal’ that is struck etc, it is better & more clean cut, black & white, clear/fair to all if the rules are expected to be adhered to & non-compliance enforced. Even then, you will get the rogues whom choose to interpret the rules the way they like, for their own benefit & some of whom will resort to charm/manipulation/nastiness to get their own way if they sense there is any scope or leeway to go around the rules – then they usually push the boundaries anyway & bingo, you potentially have damaged relationships & an uncomfortable living situation. If any exceptions are to be granted, it is best to have these approved in the most formal, legal way possible, again to be crystal clear & to minimise miscommunications.

          Viewing 4 replies - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.