• This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 months ago by .
  • Creator
    Topic
  • #72162
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      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.
    Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #72193

      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!

      #72197
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster
      Chat-starter

        It was a recording of an interview with the Building Commissioner.  Were we supposed to run it past you first for your approval?  Or send you the tape so you could comment on it? You’re commenting on it now (but not in any way that adds to anyone’s understanding of the issues).

        I would happily have lined up an interview with you so you could put your point of view but, you know, after this posting, your tone and your accusations I might deny myself that pleasure.

        FYI, John Engeler is the head of Shelter NSW – the charity for homeless people.

        Oh, and the government didn’t pay us and we didn’t pay them (strange idea!).  Maybe if you moderated your language and eased back on your wild accusations more people like me would give you more airtime.

        And finally, I don’t think this is a great outcome for anyone, but my opinion counts for nothing.

        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.
        • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by .
        #72230
        Strata Ken
        Flatchatter

          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.

          #72234
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster
          Chat-starter

            I find the idea that different classes of owners will be treated differently a bit difficult.

            I got the feeling that Mr Chandler shared that discomfort, but he has had to be ruthlessly pragmatic.

            What isn’t clear is how much the banks are going to receive from the sale of the property.

            Well, they are just going to get back the money they lent.  I think they stopped charging interest some time ago (although I may be wrong). But if the Supreme Court hadn’t blocked the collective sale, and the owners had been able to walk away from all their debts, you can pretty much guarantee that would have been the end of unsecured strata loans in Australia for a long time to come.

            It seems that if a significant proportion of the owners decide that neither meets their expectations then they can just leave it sitting there.

            Yes, but they would still be liable for ongoing levies and a share of the remediation costs (somewhere north of $25 million, I believe).

            Our strata has bylaws which specify what is to happen when unpaid levies exceed a threshold. May strata is in breach of theirs.

            Not sure what you mean by the last sentence but it seems the owners who dutifully paid their levies will be financially worse off relative to those who didn’t because the latter’s debts will be forgiven while the paid levies won’t be refunded.  Have a listen to this week’s podcast (up later).

            This also shows a deficiency in strata law.

            You seem to have forgotten the word “another”.

            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.
            #72283
            BMCRep
            Flatchatter

              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.

              #72284
              AlwaysLearning
              Flatchatter

                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.

                 

              Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
              • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.