- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 10 months, 2 weeks ago by .
-
Topic
-
We’re back and this is an absolute blockbuster, which, considering the topic, is an oddly ironic term. Last week Sue had an exclusive interview with N
[See the full post at: Podcast: Chandler on wrangling Mascot deal]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.
-
Replies
-
I just listened to this mascot towers podcast with David Chandler! Did you pay the government for this podcast!? I’m the strata chairman for mascot towers and I’m disgusted that you can broadcast this without a balanced view from the owners. Most of what I heard is just plain wrong! John Englar as an example, who the F is that?, he was not proposed by owners. This has been railroaded by DC from the beginning. We only settled our court case with the neighbours because the building commissioner forced the builder in to receivership and we could only claim from the remaining insurance, meaning we had no choice but to settle for a shit amount. In NSW there is no minimum amount of insurance to work on high profile developments. If you are going to run a rah rah piece for the government at least ask for some balance from owners!
I find the idea that different classes of owners will be treated differently a bit difficult. Now if the banks decide to write off the debt for certain classes of owner, then that is fine, as it is a commercial decision for them. What isn’t clear is how much the banks are going to receive from the sale of the property.
This also shows a deficiency in strata law. The have a strata scheme that is basically defunct, which can only re resolved in two ways. Either the owners decide that the strata will do the repairs, which probably meant unacceptable levies or borrowings or they sell it to someone who will fix it. It seems that if a significant proportion of the owners decide that neither meets their expectations then they can just leave it sitting there.
One point is that the banks and the strata committee could probably force the sale of most of the units, except it would be a public relations nightmare. There was something today in the SMH which suggested that a lot of owners didn’t pay the special levies for the legal action. Our strata has bylaws which specify what is to happen when unpaid levies exceed a threshold. May strata is in breach of theirs.
Well, @purplemonkeydishwasher, you have thrown a whole different light on this very, very sad situation, if for no other reason than the tone and language of your comment. I’m here to learn and broaden my knowledge and understanding from people like you in your situation and position. You have definately coloured this and it would appear, closed off that avenue of education. Very sad.
The situation in Mascot Towers is terrible and I really do feel very sorry for all of the owners, especially the ones who have continued to pay their mortgages and levies and if this deal goes through, would have been better off not paying anything and still getting their debt waived. It doesn’t seem equitable to anyone except the banks and strata manager, who will get paid. IF 75% of owners agree.
I read the Supreme Court ruling. Makes sense.
Unfortunately, purchasing in Strata means that owners have an unlimited liability.
A while ago our old building needed to raise quite a significant special levy to pay for remedial works. It was a lot of money, it wasn’t easy and many sacrifices had to be made. Thankfully we did not waste millions on legal fees and instead put that money into the remediation. The Strata Committee worked tirelessly with the engineers and builders to get the work done before the defects got any worse. The building is now fixed and we are moving on with our lives, having learned some valuable lessons along the way. When I move from here I know what to look out for and what not to purchase the next time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.