Objections to resolved motions at EC Meetings.

I think you will need to explain the background more clearly to get any advice. For a start, what were the motions?

There are likely local government regulations about noise. If you are not getting satisfaction from the committee of the owners corporation, you could try local government. They will probably want clear documentation of the types of noise, when and where they occurred and so on. 

Find out what the local regulations are. If they are being contravened, try the police. If there are then repeated, police-documented, valid noise complaints you would really be building a good case for action that the owners corporation would find harder to ignore. 

Enlist neighbours. If you are being bothered, perhaps others are too. On the other hand, if none of your neighbours are bothered, consider that you might be expecting too much quiet while living in close proximity to other people. 

@selmuni said:
As a full subscribe to this contractual protocol in place is this not illegal and unwarranted? Possibly even prejudicial? Where to from here?

OK, take a look at the sentence reproduced here.  It doesn’t make any sense. Please try to keep your questions to the point and in simple English (not lawyer-speak).

Now, from what I can tell, you have asked your building manager to remedy a problem with tenants and they have failed or refused to do so.

You are now trying to show that they have not addressed the issue properly by ignoring your letters or answering a different question from what you asked.

Forget claims of conflict of interest or any other conspiracy theories. There are simple remedies available to you under Section 232 of the Act (extract below) whereby the Tribunal can order the Owners Corporation to fulfill duties that it has declined or ignored.

The Owners Corp can’t choose when it deals with issues – the time limit (two months) is established by law.

So I suggest you apply for the obligatory mediation on this form and then apply for orders under Section 232 (2)(a) – decision not to exercise a function.

Have a look at section 232 below.  I suspect that when you go to these managers and tell them that you are taking them to Fair Trading and NCAT seeking orders, they might start listening. 

 

232 Orders to settle disputes or rectify complaints

(1) Orders relating to complaints and disputes
The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, original owner or building manager, make an order to settle a complaint or dispute about any of the following:
(a) the operation, administration or management of a strata scheme under this Act, 
(b) an agreement authorised or required to be entered into under this Act,
(c) an agreement appointing a strata managing agent or a building manager,
(d) an agreement between the owners corporation and an owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee of a lot in a strata scheme that relates to the scheme or a matter arising under the scheme,
(e) an exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function conferred or imposed by or under this Act or the by-laws of a strata scheme,
(f) an exercise of, or failure to exercise, a function conferred or imposed on an owners corporation under any other Act.

(2) Failure to exercise a function
For the purposes of this section, an owners corporation, strata committee or building management committee is taken not to have exercised a function if:
(a) it decides not to exercise the function, or
(b) application is made to it to exercise the function and it fails for 2 months after the making of the application to exercise the function in accordance with the application or to inform the applicant that it has decided not to exercise the function in accordance with the application.