selmuni

Very Helpful indeed thanks a lot.

Thank you kindly.

Sincere apologies for the incorrect use  of word motion above , Please replace all ” motion” words with “resolution”.

No 1 resolution above. This was resolved  in response to a letter I sent to the EC. More explanation below.

No 2 resolution above . Resolved re complaints  made by me re-noise issues, however the resolution by EC deprives me of my full contractual protocol entitlements . more explanation below. 

Background and facts :

Re Resolution 1 as printed

“Correspondence from- – – – –  (Leaf blower and other noise complaints)

The meeting tabled noise complaints from – – – – – .” RESOLVED that the use of leaf blowers is part of necessary maintenance. It was noted that this maintenance is carried out within council approved hours.”

( This resolution 1  was resolved in my absence )

There were never ever any  complaints made by me re any wind blowers and no complaints  re-noise issues in my specifically referred to correspondence here as sent to EC .

This letter to EC specifically and only dealt  with  the  inaction by the EC  and the negative response I got to my questions at this  EC Meeting re noise.

 The EC proceeded with the  Erroneous and Conflated EC Minutes  and printed the resolution above no 1, totally avoiding  in dealing with the real issues in my correspondence.

Resolution 2 :  as printed:

RESOLVED that no action will be taken by the owners corporation. Further correspondence should be sent to the strata manager who will forward onto the committee. Action will not be taken between meetings. 

Our Strata’s  front office  is owned and managed by the same parent company that leases and manages the noisy apartment I have  issues with.  

The same  front office is also in charge of handling the normal  protocol being in operation within  the  strata, meaning this front office  is delegated the job to handle all noise complaints.(as per contract)

The evidence I was trying to provide at this   EC Meeting was instantly rejected by an EC member(and all) in stating loudly,  “ not particularly” interested in listening to the substantial evidence being submitted here as emitted by these noisy tenants, even when the noise complaints occurred  after hours , along with security reports.

There is a  possibility of  conflict of interest here, as the parent company owns both businesses. When questioned about the possible conflict of interest via a motion, the EC rejected the my motion at their  EC Meeting?

Noise complaints re these residents  started some 8 yrs. ago.( due to me being away from home for long period, not anymore)

Motion 2 above now restricts  me from making any future complaints via our  standard protocol, meaning that I am not allowed to directly complain  to  our front office anymore re this apt noise issues (only).(not forgetting that one parent company owns owns/runs  both businesses ?)

The EC resolution means I may have to wait up  to three months in the EC handling any future complaint/s re this apt only due to meetings held quarterly.

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

The reasons for this motion, the names of the person that put the amendment forward and the seconder were requested but no positive response has come so far..

Any  advice and directions  would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.