- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
1. Inconsistency in Orders made.
2. Members not reading applications (especially long ones) because of limited time.
3. Process takes too long.
What else?
-
Replies
-
This is an excellent idea, T, and I am going to come back to it soon with some points.
Now, however 1. How about including the Office of Fair Trading too? After all that's where the process is supposed to start, isn't it?
2. I am not racist, but the four or five different CTTT senior staff I had dealings with in my matter all had foreign names and heavily foreign accents. IE English was not their first language and my perception is that did not fully understand my problem or the foibles of life in a strata here. How can they? If they have only experienced a year or two or even three or four of life in Australia?
There is a lot to not like about CTTT. One problem is best understood from the perspective of someone versed in a science.
In science the law is the law and the law does not get set aside based on discretion, equity, amenity or unfortunate circumstances. If the data is correct and the law is compromised then the law needs changing. The laws of science are meant to be universal; not situational.
The Strata Act gets shelved by CTTT and bodies such as the Supreme Court just so the organization can be seen to be “equitable”. I have read one Supreme Court strata case where there was a caretaker involved in a management role without authority, the Judge even stated that the caretaker was involved in unauthorized management but the Judge then drew some unspecified line in the sand between significant and insignificant management roles.
The decision involved the idea that the management role was insignificant – the Strata Act was being broken, that was not disputed by the Judge, but the degree of breach made it OK.
That is rubbish from the perspective of laws being laws. There is no such thing as a small breach in science; a small breach is huge because it compromises what is supposed to be a universal law.
In the Supreme Court matter I mention the Judge after acknowledging the breach should not have made the breach OK by creating some wishy-washy undefined line; the Judge should have resolved the matter by having the penalty reflect the degree of breach instead of compromising the Act.Inconsistency in orders and rulings makes the law meaningless waffle, leads to the erosion of public trust in the law, leads to contempt for the overseeing bodies and in the case of strata matters it reduces consumer confidence in the worth of the concept of strata property title.
I am not saying everything is black and white but i could not disagree that too many times a simple black and white matter gets greyed because of discretion, equity, amenity or even idiocy.
Urban Spaceman said:
2. I am not racist, but the four or five different CTTT senior staff I had dealings with in my matter all had foreign names and heavily foreign accents. IE English was not their first language and my perception is that did not fully understand my problem or the foibles of life in a strata here. How can they? If they have only experienced a year or two or even three or four of life in Australia?
Urban
I always cringe when someone starts a sentence with the words “I'm not racist, but …” because whatever comes next is rarely going to end up in a good place. But we know you are a good a decent soul so can I just say that regardless of whether the strata laws were in English, Urdu or Swahili, the problem occurs when anyone tries to establish common sense and logic to them. Even strata managers and CTTT adjudicators struggle to fully comprehend let alone explain Strata laws and regulations because the intent and the practice are often contradictory.
Maybe, to prove their value, Fair Trading should be trying to make the laws and regulations understandable to anyone in any language that's spoken in Australia … but first they'd have to unravel their own work, wrapped up and coded, as it is, in impenetrable bureaucratese.
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.
Inconsistent decisions. Some adjudicators do their level best to dismiss an application, rather than diligently make a decision. It is supposed to be an alternative dispute resolution process but most of the time, you need to employ a lawyer so that your application will be taken seriously. Otherwise, adjudicators will find some technicality to dismiss an application across their desks. What a joke!
I hate when the CTTT refuse to give rehearings even when the evidence proves the decision made is unlawful, inequitable and grossly against the weight of evidence. Not to mention the illegal house and frivolous claim lodged by the dodgy landlord and the house being returned in MUCH better condition than the filthy state it was leased in.
Leases and laws aren’t worth the paper they are written on when the department and fair trading minister have no means (or interest) in enforcing them or creating a deterrent to filthy landlords who have no morals or regard for the laws/acts attached to the lease we all signed.
I’ve created a website for this lazy government, we need to get these offices filled with employees who care about their jobs and the people they work for, THE TAX PAYERS…
My understanding from the CTTT Chairperson is that a Member acting as a strata schemes adjudicator should not be referred to the review committee of Sch 3 of the CTTT Act because they are acting as an adjudicator and not a member.
This would mean that s83 of the CTTT also would not apply to adjudicators.
So what is indemnifying adjudicators ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.