- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
At the last AGM in April, a vote was cast re the payment for a fence on private property. The fence was erected by a committee member for the owner, then paid for from Strata Levies. At the AGM, the owners voted to have the owner remove the fence. I think this extreme but surely the owner should pay for the fence some $1400.
This was committees response after AGM.
‘Two Committee members, spoke to NSW Fair Trading and advised them that the SC mistakenly erected the fence without prior approval of the Owners Corporation. It was advised that the main reason the fence was erected was to provide security primarily to Units with these Units being located adjacent to a public thoroughfare. It also improves the aesthetics for this area. At the AGM, it was determined that the fence had to be removed even though it had been fully paid for ($1,430). Removal would also add a further cost of $300. The SC feel it would be very mean spirited to remove the fence as it enhances the area. NSW Fair Trading advised that should this matter be taken to a tribunal hearing, it was extremely unlikely that the adjudicator would issue an order saying the fence had to be removed despite it being erected without following correct procedure’
-
Replies
-
NSW Fair Trading advised that should this matter be taken to a tribunal hearing, it was extremely unlikely that the adjudicator would issue an order saying the fence had to be removed despite it being erected without following correct procedure’
The most remarkable thing about this is that Fair Trading expressed an opinion on the likely outcome of a Tribunal (or anything, really). And it’s strange that no other advice about a fair and equitable outcome has been offered.
What has been casually forgotten here is that other owners’ money has been used to enhance the value of one property, aided and abetted by one committee member. Did the benefitting owner not ask for the fence?
In any case, removing the fence is not the issue, paying for it is. And representations to Fair Trading by the people who colluded with the owner to enhance the value of their property are hardly unbiased.
Under the Dividing Fences Act, if the fence is between the owner’s lot and common property, another property or public land, then the OC is liable for half the cost anyway (which Fair Trading in their generosity should also have explained).
I would be sending the OC a letter explaining that it should bill the benefitting owner for half the cost of the fence.
If they balk at that, there are avenues other owners can pursue via the Tribunal to compell them to do so.
The fence is not at risk. The freebie offered to the owner – or half of it – should be.
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.