- This topic has 10 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Every time one of the EC sees either myself or my partner, he immediately begins making comments like ' it would be nice to have help putting out the bins?' or 'why dont you help in the garden?' This is not done in a pleasant manner but in a raised voice at everytime he sees us. We moved into an over 55's complex and pay levies so we dont have to do maintenance. We are not obliged to do these things and the fact this particular owner wants to volunteer his time is completely his choice. The problem as I see it is that the Executive Committee expect all of us to do the maintenance of the complex rather than having a 3rd party do the work and we pay for this from our levies. What do I do about this continued harrassment and intimidation?
-
Replies
-
In my SP there is the concept that volunteers will do just about everything.
I'll give you an example; just last week one owner complained on the chalk board about the potholes in our 10km of internal roads and how one person cannot fix them all – a scribbled cry for help if you will.
The response from the roads co-ordinator was to get together a pothole workday. The idea is a collective of owners go out and fill trailers with gravel from our internal quarry and then drive around the SP filling potholes. (We do pay a significant amount in levies for roadworks but there is still an expectation that owners will do roadworks.)
Some people in my SP are openly ridiculed for not “participating” in a way that others want them to participate. If someone “complains” to the EC about common property needing repair or maintenance then the response is usually fix it yourself.
We have a significant amounts of assets and property that require constant maintenance. The “right people” get paid for their work while others are expected to do it for free. There are even people who do significant work for free but still get ridiculed because it is not work that makes the EC look good.
There are those who want everything for free and those who are happy to pay to get things done via their levies. There is a division between the two that exists in many strata plans.
Ignore the petty people who make the comments.
It is totally out of line to harrass someone about volunteering around the complex. You cannot make someone volunteer.
Though you should consider whether your levies will cover a third party. In our complex, when it was built and all moved in, we were all like minded people. At least 50% of us would do a bit of work here and there. Then most of these volunteers move out and left just a few. In their place were owners who expected absolutely everything done for them out of their levies. Problem was, the levies were not calculated to cover everything. So it was put to the owners that we would have to increase the levies, quite substantially if they wanted everything covered. We were met with a resounding “No increase”.
The few in the complex who continued to do a bit of work gave up. We have personally witnessed owners who will step over pieces of paper in the driveway, or at their front doors because that is for someone else to do. So we did get in third parties to do the most of the work. And we did have to increase the levies. I would estimate that our costs in maintaining this complex have risen about $7,000pa because of paying for third parties. And thats with owners/residents expected to keep the immediate area of their units clear, clean and tidy (which many don't) and with a few of us still doing extra work when necessary between visits from the teams we now pay.
struggler said:
It is totally out of line to harrass someone about volunteering around the complex. You cannot make someone volunteer.
Though you should consider whether your levies will cover a third party. In our complex, when it was built and all moved in, we were all like minded people. At least 50% of us would do a bit of work here and there. Then most of these volunteers move out and left just a few. In their place were owners who expected absolutely everything done for them out of their levies. Problem was, the levies were not calculated to cover everything. So it was put to the owners that we would have to increase the levies, quite substantially if they wanted everything covered. We were met with a resounding “No increase”.
The few in the complex who continued to do a bit of work gave up. We have personally witnessed owners who will step over pieces of paper in the driveway, or at their front doors because that is for someone else to do. So we did get in third parties to do the most of the work. And we did have to increase the levies. I would estimate that our costs in maintaining this complex have risen about $7,000pa because of paying for third parties. And thats with owners/residents expected to keep the immediate area of their units clear, clean and tidy (which many don't) and with a few of us still doing extra work when necessary between visits from the teams we now pay.
Thanks everyone for your comments. I should clarify that I was more than happy to help with the gardening and in fact did so until one Committee member argued about cutting back an overgrown mile a minute fine and then slapped me which ended in court and her making an undertaking to the court never to do that again. She then claimed her legal fees under our Owners Corporation Insurance saying she was acting as a committee member when in fact we had been told by the committee and Owners Corporation it was a personal matter to be dealt with through the courts. I was then told we cannot cut back anything in the garden without EC approval. So I was more than willing to assist but that demonstration of abuse made me stop immediately and decide it was better to pay the levies and have outside people do the garden. The harrassment is because I email when there is unfairness in the complex not because I want to be a nuisance. Latest example is CP storage room. Two other apartments have requested enclosed storage should it become available (the 3 other rooms allocated the EC advise are 'full'). An owner moved into an apartment just 6 months ago (I have been there 2 years next month) and got enclosed storage space in a room that had been previously used to store paint, tiles and other building paraphenalia. This is a corrupt EC and this particular EC member is nothing but a bully, coward and unintelligent buffoon who thinks he can intimidate and harras and get away with it but I will not let that happen. I am one woman prepared to put my head above the paraput to show unfairness and injustice.
Keep up the fight Macfadyen. There is a lot of corrupt EC's out there and many residents don't do anything about them. If an EC makes a ruling for one, then it should be for all – and that should be taken into consideration when an EC makes a decision ie how it affects others, the complex as a whole, not just one unit/one owner.
I would like to see penalties applied to EC's who make uninformed, unfair decisions that may adversly affect the lives of residents and the integrity of the complex. They should be made more accountable and any incidence of harrassment or bias taken further. And EC's members who participate in behaviours unbecoming a person in “authority” should be asked to step down. I know from past experience that many people go onto an EC in the belief that they can approve works for themselves, deny valid works for others and play favorites with those who bit their tongues.
Your home is and should be your castle. It should not be governed by people who believe it is as easy as saying yes or no at will.
struggler said:
…..
I would like to see penalties applied to EC's who make uninformed, unfair decisions that may adversly affect the lives of residents and the integrity of the complex. They should be made more accountable and any incidence of harrassment or bias taken further. And EC's members who participate in behaviours unbecoming a person in “authority” should be asked to step down. I know from past experience that many people go onto an EC in the belief that they can approve works for themselves, deny valid works for others and play favorites with those who bit their tongues.
…
I completely agree but what chance is there the NSW Govt reforms would be so dramatic as to make a departure from the 50 year old concept of laypeople / owners running their SPs without any real accountability?
If ECs are made accountable, and they should be, then Mr and Mrs Average Owner with little strata savvy are not about to step up and fill seats and that is a radical departure from the current situation.
The new ACT Unit Title (Management) Act 2011 has a Code of Conduct for ECs and another for Managing Agents included at the end. If NSW doesn't have anything like this (I don't know) an OC could decide to adopt its words in any case I would expect. It might be a non-specific, non-confrontational way to put concerns on the table. Also, when the Act was tabled, Teys lawyers published a set of notes on each of the code of conduct points. I expect you request a set from them.
I do believe that Mr & Mrs Average can run a strata complex. They just have to be pointed in the right direction.
Decisions have to be looked at not in a case by case situation, but in regards to the whole complex. You have to consider that my agreeing to one request, you are agreeing to everyone.
Really an EC needs the guidance of a decent SM and access to a strata lawyer for the more legal aspects. They also just need to use some common sense.
@struggler said:
I do believe that Mr & Mrs Average can run a strata complex. They just have to be pointed in the right direction.
Decisions have to be looked at not in a case by case situation, but in regards to the whole complex. You have to consider that my agreeing to one request, you are agreeing to everyone.
Really an EC needs the guidance of a decent SM and access to a strata lawyer for the more legal aspects. They also just need to use some common sense.
So they need, pointing in the right direction, to have a strata manager, common sense and to have access to a lawyer … exactly my point. The people in question, Mr. and Mrs. Average, do not, on their own, honestly have the ability to run an SP yet the Act has always envisaged that the owners (the owners being the Average’s) run, on their own, their respective SPs.
I’m not speaking universally, i.e.. i am not saying it is not possible, i am saying that in general it seems they cannot; but i would say my comment applies universally to large SPs, i.e. the Averages cannot run a large SP properly.
My point was that the fundamental premise that the Averages (i.e. ordinary lot owners) can run an SP, on their own, is no longer valid; would you agree the fundamental premise is flawed given you submit they need to have a good SM, common sense and access to a lawyer?
“The legislation has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners for their own benefit….”
J Bordon: Nulama Village P/L v Owners Strata Plan 61788 (Strata & Community Schemes) [2006] NSWCTTT 550 (25 September 2006)Mr Bordon is not saying … The legislation, which originated in 1961, has always envisaged that generally, strata schemes would be managed by ordinary lot owners, who have common sense, with the assistance of a good strata manager and access to a lawyer, for their own benefit….
Big difference and the point is should the legislation reflect the difference between 1961 and 2012. I think it should.
You may have by-laws covering the use of these storage rooms, but doesn’t exclusive use of common property have to be passed either unanimously or at least by a special resolution (75% vote) by the OC? The EC shouldn’t have the authority to allocate common property to individuals – it’s COMMON PROPERTY.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.