Use of strata funds for Neighbour issue?

Depends on whether the exhaust and aircon are common property or not.  That’s your starting point.

kaindub wrote:

That is not a strata issue, it’s a person issue.

That is simply not true.

It is a strata issue if the owners corporation decides it want to get involved – and whether or not they can legally do so is the whole point of this post.

AVOs, as has been discussed many times on this forum, are hard to get and harder to enforce.

“… there is often a gulf between the letter of the law, its intent and its implementation. And it’s that latter reality with which we have to deal.”  Your quote about APVOs from January last year

The question here is that, if the owners corp wants to get involved, would it be valid for them to do so? And my answer is, if the fan and aircon are common property and therefore causing the alleged nuisance, then yes, it is valid.

By the way, I also believe that corporations are, legally, considered to be “persons”.  And what if the “affected owner” (I assume you mean the person receiving the complaints) gets an APVO against them to stop doing whatever it is that their fans and aircon are doing.

If it’s common property it’s not their equipment so there’s nothing they can do.

Assuming the equipment is common property, the common sense approach to this would be for the OC to stand with the owner – unless the owner is using the equipment incorrectly, dangerously or offensively.

In fact, if the “affected owner” simply said “This is not my equipment so I can’t do anything about it” the unreasonable neighbour might decide that taking on the whole building was a fight they didn’t want.

Either way, I stand 100 per cent by what I wrote before – if the equipment is common property, the OC can get involved and, in fact, may have little choice in the matter.

Ah, if the aircon and exhaust fans aren’t common property, then your next step might be to follow Kaindub’s advice and issue an APVO – but since that didn’t work in the past, it’s unlikely to work now.

I think the fact that this individual has targetted several residents in the building previously may justify Owners Corp action. It’s not mandatory but no one will go to the tribunal if the OC contributes to legal fees.

Perhaps a writ for damages of tens of thousands of dollars might put her gas on a peep. I’m not saying you’d win such a case, but maybe the threat of having to pay a lot of money to defend it and potentially more if she lost might put her back in her box.

That said, if we are talking mental illness here, logic may no longer apply.

Good evening Greynatter,

I agree with what has been suggested in case this complex matter may well turn on the grounds of “mental health”.

Two things come to mind:

1. In your shoes I would seek to document any and all instances you witnessed or heard of that demonstrated that the neighbour is not ALWAYS “irrational” and not ALWAYS suffering from “mental health issues”, but indeed AT TIMES is quite “rational” and functions well. If you can show situations that paint a picture of a person behaving at times in a manner that is “normal and reasonable” and at other times behaving as though he is “unwell”, that may help dilute the presumption of genuine  suffering from “mentally illness” and may rob him of the ability to diminish his liability (assuming he is found liable); and
2. Look up “private nuisance”. Nuisance (private or public) is a civil wrong that involves a person or persons causing indirect, unwarranted and/or unreasonable interference with the interests of others. Google strata lawyers (who sponsor this website) for articles on the subject and hunt down previous cases at tribunals and courts to see the outcomes of those cases.
   

Good luck!