Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #8595
    FlatChatFan
    Flatchatter

      Thanks Jimmy,  excellent comment!

    Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #17348
      scotlandx
      Strataguru

        Yes.  People often get so caught up in something, they completely lose sight of the original reason it started.  That is, they become addicted to the dispute.

         

        A former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said to me that once people start talking about the principle of the thing, they have lost all objectivity.  I think that is very good advice.

        #17357
        Anonymous

          Well a former chief cook and bottle washer once said to me: I don’t understand this topic at all. Is there something missing?

          #17359
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster

            maybe you need to go to the HOME PAGE and read the editorial or blog or whatever it’s called these days

            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.
            #17365
            Anonymous

              The Crazy swede is confused. I’ve read in these pages that if something akin to Bill Bratton’s Zero Tolerance policy isn’t stuck to rigidly, ‘the rot will set in’. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

              You can’t simply accept the strata laws you like and the ones that suit you, but flaunt or even worse in my opinion, not enforce the laws you don’t agree with can you?

              #17368
              Jimmy-T
              Keymaster

                @That Crazy Swede said:
                The Crazy swede is confused. I’ve read in these pages that if something akin to Bill Bratton’s Zero Tolerance policy isn’t stuck to rigidly, ‘the rot will set in’. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

                You can’t simply accept the strata laws you like and the ones that suit you, but flaunt or even worse in my opinion, not enforce the laws you don’t agree with can you?

                I don’t know who said you have to stick to zero tolerance ‘rigidly’ but i hope it wasn’t me.  Yes, give some people an inch and they will take a mile – but other people might just be trying to muddle through as best they can and will take direction and correction where it’s offered. You won’t know which is which until they show their true colours.

                It’s not a question of accepting the strata laws you like and flouting or chosing not to enforce the others.

                Some issues are worth going to the barricades over and others aren’t.  If somebody is breaking by-laws and causing other people distress, and they refuse to toe the line then, to quote myself, you should “go them like a pit bull in a poodle shop.”

                But there’s also the concept of “no harm, no foul”.  For instance, if you are visiting a neighbour’s apartment for some reason and discover they are drying their washing on the balcony in breach of whatever by-law you have, even though no one else can see this, do you really raise a complaint.  Zero tolerance would say yes, common sense would say ‘why bother?’

                If people park briefly in visitor parking while they unload their groceries into the lift, and everybody accepts that they are, strictly speaking, breaking the rules so they move on as soon as they have unloaded, is there any real harm?

                But if someone gets into the habit of leaving their car there for hours rather than minutes, yes, the rot has started to set in, as you put it.

                A smart EC and/or strata manager will quickly spot the first signs and respond accordingly.  But policing your strata block with the grim efficiency of the KGB (or in your case, SÄPO??) is not the way to build a responsible community.  And hunting out every minor infringement or example of ‘creative’ management is not going to make us good neighbours in anyone’s eyes.

                As the New York experience showed, zero tolerance is a great idea when everything has already hit rock bottom – but it is not a philosophy for building new communities based on mutual trust and respect.

                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.
                #17367
                scotlandx
                Strataguru

                  Excuse the philosophical rant, as Francis of Assisi’s prayer goes:

                  Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change

                  the courage to change the things I can

                  and the wisdom to know the difference.

                   

                  You could spend every waking hour noting infractions of the by-laws, sending furious emails to the strata manager and EC and demanding action.  But this doesn’t encourage harmonious community living, or take into account that everyone is human.  I do things that people don’t like, and there are lots of things others do that annoy me, but by and large you just get on with your life.  I have better things to do with mine. 

                   

                  We are currently dealing with someone who is furious because he believes we have been unfair.  This person has damaged common property and done a range of things that demonstrate absolutely no consideration for others.  We have focused on the major issues and let certain other things slide, but we are insistent that they must rectify the breaches we consider to be significant.  In return they send countless emails reporting us for putting washing on our balconies, which is not a breach, and other petty imagined issues.  It is very sad, and I wonder why someone like that chose to live in a community situation.

                  #17369
                  struggler
                  Flatchatter

                    I’m sorry.  But for me you either abide by the by laws or you don’t.  You can’t say that one isn’t a big breach but that one is.  They are either in breach or they are not.

                    We have an example in our complex where a complaint about a resident in apartment B from the resident in apartment A has lead to those in apt B claiming they are being picked on because the resident in apt C is doing the same thing.  But those in C are not bothering those in A with their actions and no one else seems bothered.  So what if the matter escalates and is taken further?  If it is shown  that other residents are doing the same action but have not been issued any notice, would the complaint from residents in apt A have a leg to stand on?

                    Wouldn’t it be better to have a system where by laws are enforced by all and if not there is an easy and consistent way to have the matter dealt with?  And if complex’s do not want to follow by laws, they can get rid of all or some of them.  Don’t bend a little here but be rigid there.  We used to be a complex that turned a blind eye to this and that.  If someone parked once in a blue moon in visitors spots, or in the driveway, we thought it is only once.  But because they didn’t receive a note saying don’t do it, that once became twice, became thrice, became just about everyday.  But we gave them an inch and they did take a mile.  And so did the someone else, then someone else all because no one did anything in the first instance.  It was turning into open slather free for all.  Now there is a notice in the first instance.  We have almost managed 100% compliance to the “visible” by laws.

                    At least in my complex, I can now have visitors who can park, we can access our garages without having to dodge cars and I can come home and know what my home/the complex will look like (ie no changes to the external appearance).  I moved into strata for the protections that the by laws gave me over and above the civil laws if I lived in a house.  I have fought many a battle over by laws on “principle”.  I have won those battles.  I did not get a warm fuzzy feeling on my wins, because I should not have had to fight in the first place.

                    #17370
                    Jimmy-T
                    Keymaster

                      I can see a lot of sense in what you are saying, although I don’t agree 100 percent.

                      If it was up to me, on most issues I’d tend to wait until there was a complaint and deal with it then.

                      The parking analogy is valid but it is one of the ‘hot’ strata issues that you might keep under a tight rein anyway whereas others – like the obligation to keep your windows clean – may be allowed to drift. In the parking case, in some places a gentle reminder – “your car has been parked here a lot and just reminding you that’s a breach of by-laws” – might be enough before the EC goes issuing notices to comply.

                      I also think that different strata plans work in different ways and that’s very much to do with the kind of people who live there. Some people only respond to the big stick while others are more receptive to the quiet word.

                      It’s not an exact science and there are times when ‘zero tolerance’ is the only option that works – I just wouldn’t make it the only option for everyone every time.

                      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.
                      #17371
                      Anonymous

                        Scotty x and myself must move in the same circles. Why, only this morning Chief Justice of NSW Clint Eastwood said to me, “Get off my lawn”, which I did of course, because he had previously asked “Did I fire six shots of did I fire 5?” I wasn’t going to give him the correct answer. Please excuse my philosophical rant, too. Then again, I could have well have quoted Foreign Minister Bob Carr who said “Lord, lift this chalice from my head and thrust it back from whence it came”.

                        But really, I am most puzzled by the Moderator and chieftain of Flat Chat suggesting by-laws need only be observed selectively. Struggs need not apologize. I’m with him on this.

                        #17372
                        Jimmy-T
                        Keymaster


                          @Blue
                          Swimmer said:
                          I am most puzzled by the Moderator and chieftain of Flat Chat suggesting by-laws need only be observed selectively. Struggs need not apologize. I’m with him on this.

                          I don’t think that what I said.  What I was trying to establish was a difference between by-laws that need to be applied because there has been a complaint or there is a serious problem and those that have technically been breached but haven’t really bothered anyone.

                          I don’t dismiss the principle of the thin end of the wedge (or, indeed, the slippery slope) but I think if we are going to entice more people into strata (as we need to do) we shouldn’t be scaring them off with a rigid “zero tolerance” approach to by-laws.

                          Many of our attitudes to strata living and the by-laws inspired by them are seriously out of date – hence the current major review of strata law.  But if you’d care to point out the passage of the Strata Act that says Owners Corporations have a legal obligation to enforce their by-laws, I would be most enlightened.

                          If there is no legal obligation to do so (and I don’t think there is likely to be one even after the laws have been revamped), you are entitled to ask why that is.  An oversight?  Perhaps.  But allowing communities to set their own thresholds of what is and isn’t acceptable, seems more likely.

                          Selective enforcement of by-laws, to me, is when you pull someone up for the same offence that another resident commits without any comeback. For that reason I have in the past argued in favour of compulsory enforcement when there are complaints. 

                          I believe that Executive Committees have an obligation to pursue legitimate complaints by residents and I think when they choose not to do so, they should be obliged to put in writing why they have made that decision.

                          But I don’t think anyone should be actively looking for faults and flaws in others’ behaviour.  That’s not what community living is about. 

                          All by-laws are not equal. Choosing to ignore washing that can’t be seen on a balcony or a kitten that isn’t doing anyone any harm is a bit different to allowing people to park their third or fourth cars in visitors parking, have all-night parties or leave dogs yapping all day while they are at work.

                          And finally, thank you for elevating me to Chieftain of the clan McFlatchat. Slainthe Mhath.

                          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.
                          #17373
                          Cosmo
                          Flatchatter

                            In our Strata our EC has told the owners to look at enforcing bylaws as if they are nuisances.  And how big a nuisance a breach causes is used as a guide to how strictly it will be enforced.

                            As an example, we have an issue about the standard bylaw about vehicles parking on common property.  Because of the physical layout of our units we have a few owners who can park on common property (directly outside their garage).  Them doing so does not cause any problems to anyone else (except access to their own garage).  However we have a few units where parking outside their garage (on common property) is a distaster and blocks other owners from accessing their garages.

                            One of the owners that can’t park outside their garage wanted a strict enforcement of the ‘no parking on common property’ bylaw.  This owner’s only argument was that “if I can’t do it no one should be able to”.  The EC told the owner while they would enforce the bylaw against him, they would not enforce it against owners who can do so without a nuisance to anyone else.

                            #17376
                            Whale
                            Flatchatter

                              I don’t how much notice the decision makers will take of submissions to the (NSW) Strata Review, but with regard to By-Laws my submission suggested that rather than having whatever “Model By-Laws” emerge from the Review then applying retrospectively to all existing Strata Schemes, perhaps have a comprehensive suite of By-Laws from which Owners Corporations (O/C) would be required select and resolve to adopt, and then consistently enforce in accordance with the then operations of their Scheme. 

                              If at some future time the operations of a Scheme required the adoption of another By-Law from the suite included in the Act, then the O/C could resolve to adopt and consistently enforce that. Special By-Laws for specific purposes could still be adopted using the same procedures that currently apply.

                              My objective was to give O/Cs the ability to choose and adopt the By-Laws that are essential to the operations of their Plans; and if they’re that essential why wouldn’t they consistently enforce them?

                              #17377
                              Jimmy-T
                              Keymaster

                                I think Whale has expressed something I was trying to get to. By-laws are adopted as a package for a lot of strata plans on a one-size-fits-all basis. But very few strata schemes have exactly the same priorities or needs. Also, in older buildings, by-laws often haven’t evolved to match the world in which they operate. That’s how you very quickly get to a position where the least relevant by-laws are actively ignored. I agree with the notion of a general review of by-laws and I think it should be done as a one-off, based on a simple majority of owners, rather than the progress-crippling 75 percent. After all, we accept the by-laws for a new scheme by a simple majority – maybe once every ten years we should get to review them on the same basis.
                                Of course, I speak from a fantasy land where the majority of owners know what by-laws are, care what they say and understand what they mean.

                                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.
                                #17391
                                struggler
                                Flatchatter

                                  For me, a complex where no one complains news it bothers them directly is a bit like the not in my backyard brigade. That is, one will see something that might affect someone else but as it doesn’t affect themselves they say nothing. Until the same does affect them. I have spent my time in strata standing up for the enforcement of by laws for others as well as myself. But am beginning to wonder why.
                                  I would not like to live in a complex that allows residents who have the room outside their garage to park their cars to the detriment of those who don’t have the room who may be found in breach of by laws. I do not see why one resident gets to have extra space to park their cars, with no extra financial cost (extra unit entitlements/levies etc) but the bloke who doesn’t have the extra space too bad park somewhere else or get fined! if those who parked outside their garages had to pay for the privilege of the extra parking, I may consider that. But you just wait and see how ,any will not think it is such a good idea anymore if they have to put their hand in their pockets to have three parking spaces.
                                  There is a townhouse complex near me. It has better floor layouts, a courtyard and terrace area, and most of them have been extensively renovated and look fantastic. But they sell for about $50,000 less than the places in m complex. I. Looked at this complex when looking for a place for m elderly mother. There were cars parked along the driveway, outside the garages. Sure, there was space for others to get past and get in and out of their garages. But the place looks like a parking lot.
                                  I have a friend who lives in a complex where all have double garages except him. So everyone has two garages yet they still park down the driveway and in the visitors spots. My friend has difficultly getting to his garage let alone in it. But as he is the only one affected, his is the only voice to speak up, and the others are happy with their little arrangement and would all vote that this is ok, my friend is left to have no where for friends and family to visit and be found in breach if he parks outside his garage. No, it is just not right. Why should they get extra parking whilst my friend gets only what he paid for when he purchased?

                                  #17396
                                  Jimmy-T
                                  Keymaster

                                    Having kicked this debate off with an editorial about how it’s OK to do nothing about a problem that affects only you, I now find myself being asked to defend a position that has been misconstrued as suggesting that it’s OK to do nothing about something that only affects other people.

                                    This was never my argument and I have to blame myself for not making my position absolutely clear. So if we are going to open the discussion out, let me try to establish what that position is:

                                    If a by-law breach offends you or any other person, then you should pursue it  – but only if you think it will do any good.

                                    But what about a situation where a by-law has been breached but it’s extremely debatable whether or not any harm has been done?

                                    Right now in my building one of the topmost balconies, 15 storeys up and about five metres wide, is absolutely covered with flashing white Christmas lights. You can literally see the balcony lights for miles and I can think of at least two by-laws that are clearly being breached and there may be more.

                                    For the record, I’m not a big fan of Christmas lights (or Christmas at all, for that matter) but I know they bring a lot of pleasure to those of a less curmudgeonly disposition than mine. 

                                    However, by-law breaches are very visibly occurring. Should I write to the Strata Manager and EC? I know the lights will be gone after Twelfth Night but, hey, this is a thin end of a wedge that will appear in big fat rainbow colours round about Mardi Gras.  Maybe I could get a motion up for our AGM specifically banning (or allowing?) fairy lights. Yes! That solves the issue of the by-law breach – let’s ALLOW the decorations.

                                    I should run a campaign to wrest the rich proxy harvest from our all-powerful  chair to ensure the passage of a by-law removing restrictions on what you can have on balconies and what you can do to common property to specifically allow Christmas lights, Mardi Gras decorations and, to be fair, Australian flags for Anzac Day and Australia Day. Oh, and can we allow the Aboriginal flag too … or that really cool flag that replaces the Union Flag in the top left corner of our flag with the indigenous banner. Then there will be no by-law breach and everyone will be happy.

                                    OK, not everyone because people are different.  But, most importantly, the by-laws aren’t being breached. Hmmm.

                                    See, I have to consider the possibility that everybody except me is perfectly happy with the way things are, by-law breaches or none.

                                    So I think I might take an executive decision to do nothing except sip another glass (or three) of Sangiovese on my balcony, the only place around here where I can’t see those bloody lights. 

                                    All joking aside, the issue of free-range parking cited by Struggler (immediately below), is one where you could reasonably argue that it affects the value of everyone’s properties because it creates an impression of chaos in the same way that allowing everyone to paint the front of their townhouses a different colour might.  

                                    It is also unfair in that case because people are using common property selfishly for their own benefit free of charge while one owner doesn’t have that option.

                                    The offended owner has the right to take the issue to the CTTT and ask them to issue an order to enforce the parking by-law. Good luck with that!  The chances are the CTTT will rule that since the majority of owners like things the way they are, they’re not going to do any such thing.

                                    And if there was the remotest chance of that action succeeding, the majority of owners would simply amend their by-law to allow them to do what they are already doing. As Churchill famously said, democracy is the worst system of government in the world … apart from all the others.

                                    A smarter move might be to canvas real estate agents in the area about what they think free-range parking does to the value of properties, then let the neighbours know what they say and let them make the change from within. Then mark out some external parking slots that are available on a first-come, first-served basis.  

                                    Or let it go because in the final summation, the energy, time and emotion expended in trying to get selfish humans to be less selfish may not be worth whatever it is that you gain.

                                    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 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
                                  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                                  Flat Chat Strata Forum Living in strata Current Page