Serial complainers?

I'm afraid that as long as your Plan's prolific letter writer has the time to persist, there's not much that your E/C and Strata Manager (SM) can do but respond; that's the proper thing to do, but the nature of those responses is very much within E/C's control.

Upon receipt of his next letter have your SM respond, and include a para. advising that all future contact with your Plan's Insurer and Contractors must be via the SM or E/C Secretary (depending upon the delegations under your Agreement), and that any and all matters to do with the management of your Plan are best raised personally at E/C or General Meetings.

After that, if the correspondence continues (and it may well), I'd suggest a very brief shell-letter type response, that simply acknowledges his. Once your serial complainer realises that that's all he's going to get (e.g. no apparent reaction), but that the door's not shut (because it can't be), he may attend personally at Meetings where you can better control what he says and when.

Defamation is largely in the eyes of the reader, so just ignore it.

When I read this post, I initally thought that astraia and I must live in the same complex, however the number of units did not match! We have an identical issue with an owner (and ex-EC member) who continually harrasses the EC and Strata Manager via email, misrepresents the truth and generally makes a complete nuisance of himself (together with his wife). It reached the point last year where our Strata Manager involved their lawyers, after being accused of ‘vote-stacking’ at our AGM, which was not at all the case, however as the offending owner was not returned to the EC, they felt that some sort of conspiracy theory must have been in place. The latest stunt has been to begin circulating emails they received whilst on the EC to owners, where the content involved that other owner, and generally involved an issue with the owner in question. Let’s just say that has stirred up a whole new bundle of trouble. Our Strata Managers have also proposed a significant fee increase, given the time needed to respond to the barrage of emails from these trouble-makers, and I can’t say I blame them.

Whilst it is easy to say ignore them, and that certainly would be the preference, its often not that simple, and continual disruption at EC meetings has become the norm. After 3 years as Chair, I stepped down as I could no longer bear dealing with them, and the time spent outside of working hours trying to manage their continual harrassment was not compatible with life

I wish there was a solution, however I haven’t found it yet…..

This may seem a bit extreme but I think verbal abuse – spoken or in writing – is considered an assault when you apply for an Apprehended Violence Order. However I believe that this would only be a legitimate avenue if the individual members of the EC applied for the AVO.

It may be worth asking a lawyer if your neighbours can be ordered to cease and desist their harrassment campaigns and that they be ordered not to speak at Executive Committee meetings unless they are invited to do so by the Executive Committee (as prescribed in the strata Act, see below).

If you get a court order against them and they continue their behaviour, they are breaking the law (contempt of court) and the police can be involved.

You might also be able to get an order forbidding them from using letters and other material owned by the Owners Corp – that’s all the owners collectively – for their own personal use.

I’m instinctively against censoring or silencing alternative voices, regardless of how annoying they are, but it’s hard to prove where freedom of speech becomes a licence to abuse.  In cases where this is clearly mischievous and causing serious distress while interrupting the smooth running of the building then it may be a matter of compiling the evidence and gathering statutory declarations to show that this behaviour has gone beyond acceptable ‘energetic’ discussion of the issues of the day. 

When someone is sending owners material which shows they have been discussed in uncomplimentary terms, all you can do is accept that, yes, as part of the running of the building, people sometimes disagree and there are two sides to every story.  If what has been said, or more significantly, written  in “private” is defamatory, then you have a whole other issue to deal with because there is no such thing as private correspondence in an EC.

To paraphrase a lawyer friend, the only time you can keep EC correspondence secret from owners is when there is an issue of “commercial in confidence  around contracts or when the EC is involved in a legal battle with an owner and it would be to the majority of owners’ disadvantage if all correspondence was available to the other party.  But, as an Owners Corporation Network seminar was told recently  even then you are on shaky ground, legally.

By the way, if the disgruntled owners are disrupting EC meetings, you could issue them with a Notice To Comply* with Schedule 3, Part 2, Paragraph 14 of the strata Act which says:

14   Owners’ attendance at executive committee meetings

An owner … is entitled to attend a meeting of the executive committee but may not address the meeting unless authorised by resolution of the executive committee.

If they turn up and disrupt a meeting after they have received an NTC, you can run them along to the CTTT and ask it to impose a fine of up to $550.

*I’ve since been told that, since you can only issue Notices to Comply with by-laws (not the law) you have to first pass a by-law agreeing that owners will conduct themselves at meetings subject to the appropriate section of the strata Act.

Gosh, I thought we were doing badly with the owner who since October has sent us nearly 200 emails on the one topic.  A lot of those emails have been abusive, make outrageous claims and I think are bordering on defamatory.  Stating that EC members are mentally ill is not very nice. 

In the end we advised the matter was closed and would not enter into any further correspondence.  Aside from anything else, it was taking up hours of the strata manager’s time.

Sadly there is no law against being a pain in the neck, and of course there shouldn’t be, as the test is subjective.  However, at present the CTTT has no power to determine/declare that a person is a vexatious litigant, and there is only limited scope to award costs against a party.  While these sorts of powers should be exercised with great caution, I believe this is an issue that deserves attention.

In relation to Jimmy’s suggestion to issue a notice to comply with the legislation, I don’t believe an owners corporation can do that, as it only applies to by-laws.  I do know of at least one OC where the strata manager had to have police present at meetings because two owners had become violent over a long-running dispute.  The dispute was in relation to…a doormat.

Yes I know what you are getting at, but I think it is drawing a pretty long bow in terms of breach of the Act.  Re “holding meetings in accordance with the Act”, I believe that would be more along the lines of an OC failing to hold meetings, failing to follow procedures for meetings, or resolutions being improperly dealt with etc.

Where someone turns up and talks at a meeting despite being told not to, the CTTT is going to ask where was the harm, while balancing the rights of owners to have their say.

My primary concern was that a notice to comply under section 45 refers to a breach of a by-law.

An adjudicator does deal with breaches of the Act, in which case the OC can make an application, they don’t have to issue a notice to comply.  Examples of that would include an owner breaching sections 116 or 117 re interfering with the structure of a lot or creating a nuisance.

In the case of someone causing havoc at meetings, you then have to look at the powers of an adjudicator under Part 4 and I am not so sure they extend to this sort of scenario.  As I have said elsewhere, there is no law against someone being a pain in the neck. 

In the context of meetings, it is up to the Chair to run the meeting – if someone is being disruptive then the Chair should issue a warning, and if the person ignores it they should be removed.  I know in real life this is not always workable.

The. SMH reported last week on the fabulous proceedings of the Calabria Community Club AGM where an all-out brawl broke out, complete with chair hurling, so it’s not limited to strata!