- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
1. An owner erects a fence in common property:
Legal fees to defend the case $7000
Cost of fence and additional to match $5000
Cost of landscaping to match landscaping done by owner $7000
Cost of replacing fire door for non compliant locks $4000
That is over $2000 per unit. A bylaw would have cost $100 per unit.
And still when I try to put a motion for proper bylaws it gets rejected. Now one of the owners wants us to repair his floorboards because there is no record of what was originally installed. So we have to fork out another $4500 or fight them in court.
I have had enough and I don't want to keep paying for the stupidity of the majority.
On each of these occassions I have prewarned the OC so why should I keep paying?
-
Replies
-
I don't really get this, bpositive? Could you confirm that some bloke put up his own fence on common property and the OC had to go to court to make him take it down and restore the area? If not, what? And what's the fire door and floor got to do with the price of fish?
This may be of great interest and helpful to me if I could understand it.
Am hearing you bpositive! I don't want to pay for other owners either. Something needs to be done. An owner can make a change on the sly and then say it was always like that and the OC should pay.
Our complex was an off the plan job. The original owners could pick their paint colours, floor coverings, taps, tiles, fixtures etc. So, what was in where when? The OC wouldn't know what was originally there. Therefore they no one would know if a change had been made in a unit. It's not like we all had white tiles on the floor and beige on the walls!
Owners want to OC to be responsible and replace/repair fixtures in their units, but they also what the ability to change/renovate the same fixtures/tiles etc without notice or permission. It frustrates me – you can't have it both ways. Either you are responsible so can change then if your want (proper notice notwithstanding) – or the OC is responsible and you have to jump through all the hoops to get change done!
For your owner with the floorboards, I do believe that floorboards are covered by strata insurance (as they cannot be taken with you when you move unlike carpet?!). Found that our SM had been arranging floorboards repairs/replacement with our insurance by accident as they never bothered telling us what they were doing. So try your strata insurance first before your OC spends anymore money.
Our OC recently passed a by-law that said all unapproved changes to common property were the responsibility of the owner who did it or any subsequent owners of that property. The lawyers assured us that this is legal and enforceable. If so, it's worth adding to your by-laws before anyone gets a chance to remodel at your expense.
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.
If you do not decided to move and leave them to it, suggestions have been given in other areas about having lot entitlements adjusted at government Land & Property or Land Titles.
It should mean that the owner with extra space pays a higher allocation of the OC costs as well, also explained in other posts previously.
I find this story absolutely astounding. Why didn't the CTTT do 'the right thing', point to the obvious corruption, dysfunction and breaches of the Strata Titles Act and make orders to set things right? It's ludicrous!
The goings-on in the 'Recording of minutes' topic here is just as awful.
Come on Jimmy, lawyers and strata manager experts. What hope is there? What can be done?
Unexpected Leigh said
Come on Jimmy, lawyers and strata manager experts. What hope is there? What can be done?
OK, Leigh. If you look a few posts up, there's an reference to a by-law that, I'm assured, takes care of all these problems, including retrospectively, according to the lawyer who drafted it.
Asking why the CTTT didn't do the right thing is like asking “how long is a piece of string?” The CTTT is a deeply flawed organisation that has been moving steadily away from its core principles, which were to provide a simple, fair and low-cost forum for the hearing and adjudication of strata disputes.
Today is the last day for submissions to the State Government on what should be done with it in the great wash-up of tribunals that's a-coming.
Personally, I'd scrap the waste of time that is mediation and replace it with a three person committee of a strata manager, a strata lawyer and a former EC office-bearer and then if the loser of the case wants to appeal, there is a fixed set of costs that they have to pay should their appeal fail.
But this case is a very good example of how the 'nod and a wink' form of EC management only really helps the selfish, greedy and lazy at the expense of people who are often sneered at for trying to do things properly.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.