Previous musings

Roll up the red tape (11/2/12)

One of the stated aims of the current revision of strata law is to remove a lot of the red tape so that people can just get on with running their buildings.  But what does that mean?  Will it make it easier or harder to run a case through the CTTT (if it still exists in its current form, which seems increasingly unlikely).  Will it be easier to nail down developers when they have thrown up defective buildings and want to walk away from million-dollar  rectification bills? Unlikely.  You can guarantee the same people who were pouring money into Labor pockets to ensure they had open slather on high rise developments will have found a way to sweeten their relations with the Coalition.  The worst of them have operated on rat cunning, greed and creative amorality for the last decade or so – they’re not going to change just because the government has.

But maybe the red tape could be unentangled at source.  Overly elaborate by-laws devised by over-zealous lawyers in conjunction with paranoid, nitpicking,  confused control-freak executive committees do not make for good management … or happy communities, for that matter.

My own building, for instance, recently had an issue with an owner who installed giant mirrors on the side walls of their balconies.  Even 15 stories up, they were pretty obvious.  A polite note from the building manager about changing common property without permission and they were gone in two days. Result.  It was an honest error by the owner and it was quickly resolved by the building manager and executive committee. So far, so good – small war, not many dead.

However, as a direct result a whole new by-law has been proposed to cover every possible visual intrusion into the look of the building (except for barbecues, of course, they’re fine, regardless of how ugly they look or how much stink or smoke they pour into other owners’ lots). Things that are excessively bulky or the wrong colour  are to be verboten … although the definition of bulky (rather than, say, large) or what precise shade of which colour is acceptable is yet to be determined. Legal eagles, pull up your briefs and prepare for actions!

But this is not about my building where, in any case, common sense tends to prevail … eventually. No, this is about us all tangling ourselves in red tape when all we need are simple clear rules and a willingness to pursue them. My point is, if the by-laws ain’t broke, don’t fix them.  If the rules of your building are working effectively, why add to them?

There’s a very good reason for not complicating by-laws. Every little change you make creates another possible loophole and, boy, do litigants love a loophole!  If owners don’t know what common property is before they mess with it, tell them.  You don’t need to draft a whole new by-law  that won’t be read anyway every time someone in your building has to be told that their balcony, walls, windows or visitor parking doesn’t belong to them.

So these changes that are about to be devised by the State government really need to address the real problem: we strata dwellers are over-controlled and under-informed when it comes to our by-laws.  Often the by-laws seem stupid and petty and so we don’t trust them … if we bother to read them in the first place.

So here’s my proposal: every strata plan should be given the period covered by two AGMs to audit and revise their by-laws and strip them back to essentials. The “model” by-laws suggested in the strata act and regulations cover most of the possibilities and should be the starting point. Anything specific to your buildings – like exclusive use by-laws – can be tacked on to them. When that’s done, every new owner and tenant has to sign a document that says they have read the by-laws and agrees to abide by them. Finally, make enforcement of bylaws mandatory (as it is in other states) rather than optional, dependent on the whims of the executive committee.  That not only allows owners a degree of certainty about how their building will be run, it takes the heat off EC members if they are legally bound to raise complaints.

By the way, mandatory enforcement of by-laws doesn’t mean StrataCops patrolling unit blocks looking for breaches – it means that if a resident makes a legitimate complaint, the building manager, executive committee or strata manager has to take it seriously and can’t just fob it off as a dispute between two neighbours.

More on this, next time …

The Future is …Flexible (Jan. 2012)

Don’t hold your breath but it may be that the most profound changes to strata law are in the offing … or it could be the most elaborate deployment of smoke and mirrors in an area of government previously, at least, unsurpassed in its lack of transparency and history of obfuscation rather than enlightenment.

I’m speaking of course of the NSW government’s current canvassing of all and sundry in strata for their – that’s YOUR – views on what needs to be done to fix strata laws in this state.

If you go to the website HERE you can chip in and answer any or all of these four questions:

Q1. What are the main areas of the existing strata and community scheme laws you would like to see changed?
Q2. Can you see any future issues that need to be addressed in the legislation?
Q3. How could the management of strata and community schemes be improved?
Q4. Are there any changes needed to the way disputes in strata and community schemes are resolved?

You can read what other people are saying and the survey is allegedly going to be used to help with a revision of the strata laws planned for mid this year (2012). Whether or not they pay much attention to what we, the people who actually live in strata say, is another matter.

Cynical, moi? Anyone who has watched an episode of Yes, Minister or The Thick Of It will know that one of the basic principles of politics is that you don’t ask a question if you don’t know the answer. So let’s have a look at what our pollies are thinking the answer might be.

If you look at the survey website, there’s a message from Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts who says: “An improved, modern and more flexible framework for strata and community schemes is essential. Many people waste thousands of dollars in legal fees because the law is not simple and clear.”

No argument from me on that although I wonder what ‘simple’, ‘clear’ and ‘flexible’ mean to politicians and civil servants.

Also via the website, Greg Pearce, MP, briefly outlines his vision for the new laws: “The legislation should be flexible and accessible, balancing the needs of developers, owners and residents, but is it?”

There’s that F-word again. And when you hear about a need to “balance the needs of developers” you have to assume, based on the recent reduction of the window for defect rectification, that they aren’t going to be any worse off in this brave new ‘flexible and accessible’ world.

Fair’s fair, it mostly sounds good – but what does it all mean? Where are they going with this? Here’s a clue: a senior civil servant telling us they’d prefer fewer rules, not more, in strata.

“The problems that cause most disputes in strata and community schemes are fairly easy to identify,” say Michael Coutts-Trotter. “You start with the three Ps – pets, parking and parties. Floating timber floors, noise problems, decaying old buildings, rising levies, overcrowding, misuse of proxies, owners who do not pay on time and a lack of clarity over what is common property are just some of the other issues.”

Notice there is no mention of building defects and the difficulty many new home buyers have in simply getting what they paid for or being sneakily locked into long-term contracts with the developers subsidiaries or mates. A clear case of “don’t mention the war,” don’t you think? It seems that as long as we remember that we are the problem, maybe then the government can find a solution.

So what does Mr Coutts-Trotter, Director-General of the Department of Finance and Services, think the government should do about the issues they do acknowledge? The answer seems to be “less is more”.

“One area that needs more attention is the amount of red tape, particularly for smaller buildings and those that run their scheme without the services of a professional managing agent,” says Mr Coutts-Trotter. “Many thousands of people across NSW give up their time to sit on executive committees or become office bearers for their scheme.

“This is often a thankless task and some schemes have increasing difficulty in finding enough people willing to volunteer for these roles. The last thing they need are prescriptive rules and procedures to follow without any real reason or purpose.”

Amen to that, but can you give us an example of rules that have ‘no reason or purpose’? Are you saying that Executive Committees, many of whom already either don’t know about or don’t bother with rules and regulations, should have even fewer controls on their actions?

“Cutting red tape would not only save costs for schemes, it would also remove the source of many nitpicking, technical disputes that arise when someone has simply forgotten to dot the i’s and cross the t’s,” says the DG, who asks, “Can you think of any unnecessary areas of red tape in either the strata or community scheme laws which should be cut?”

Hmmm. What does he mean by technical? Proper agendas and notifications of meetings? Correct minutes and meetings procedures?

Or are we talking about the current requirement for EC meetings before Notices To Comply can be issued. Or having to traipse off to the CTTT every time somebody parks on Common Property? Or ending up strangled by the dreaded red stuff if you want to ensure your residential building isn’t turned into a holiday hotel by a handful of greedy bastards or prevent hot-bunking students being crammed into one flat?

Fair Trading Commissioner Rod Stowe has a few thoughts too: “Opening up the types of matters that can be mediated may prevent disputes from festering within schemes. Adopting the Community Justice Centre model of a free service may encourage more people to give mediation a go.”

Sounds good – and Rod has views on enforcing compliance too.

“There are close to 70 offences in the current laws, many of which attract maximum penalties of only $110 or $220,” he notes. “A shorter list of key offences would make better use of our limited resources. Innovative and practical remedies, other than court action and fines, may be worth exploring.”

Like … what? Name and shame? An hour in the stocks (rotting vegetable missiles optional)? But seriously, what most strata schemes want is quick action against troublesome offenders. However, anything that doesn’t have proper procedure gets perilously close to vigilante tactics.

Des Mooney, the General Manager, Land and Property Information (LPI), again mentions flexibility; it’s a great word for politicians and civil servants because it sounds desirable but, when it comes down to it, means little.

The pollies want to cut the number of laws that govern strata from a ridiculous 10. Hear, hear to that. But there is a simple solution – you simply say that Strata Law supersedes any other law when there is a conflict over a strata issue. Also, as a general legal principal, you accept that in strata the needs of the community over-ride the much-vaunted ‘rights’ of the individual.

And, in an effort to root out the cancerous corruption that can eat at the heart of these new-born communities, once half the lots have been sold a developer should have ZERO influence over the rest of a strata plan. No votes. Nada.

Combined, these changes would sweep up all the others and be modern, flexible, clear, balanced and all the other buzzwords that have infected this debate.

One other idea. Every strata plan in NSW is given a year (or two AGMs) to review their by-laws. After that, they have to have a “mission statement” that goes on the front of every rental or sales contract.

It could say something like: “This strata plan does not allow uninsulated flooring or pets. We also take action against excessive noise and illegal parking. We encourage short-term lets. All our other by-laws are enforced.”

Or it could say, “This Strata plan has a give-and-take attitude to noise, provided it is not excessive or persistent, and we welcome well-behaved pets. However, parking is strictly monitored and we take action against smokers who are a nuisance to other residents.”

See what I’m getting at? Everybody would know from day one what kind of building they were getting into and no one would have any excuses when they were pulled up for by-law breaches. These mission statements could, of course, be altered as the nature of the buildings evolved.

But what we really need is a quick, clear and INflexible process of enforcement so we can all get on with enjoying our strata living. Flexibility may be the springboard to a bright new strata future … but it sounds too close to floppy for my comfort.

50 years on, a change is coming to Strataland (Dec. 2011)

You may have noticed the report in the Sydney Morning Herald this week that the Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts is looking at a major revamp of strata laws. It’s an appropriate time for him to do this, it being the 50^th anniversary of NSW having the first strata laws in the world.

And he has the opportunity to sweep away all the crappy compromises that have been made over the years and blame it all on his ALP predecessors (sometimes justifiably, sometimes less so). But before we clean the slate, it’s worth looking at how we got into our current mess.

Many years ago, just when high-rise development in this state was starting to take off, the state government had the brilliant idea of allowing self certification for strata buildings. After all, the majority of property developers are decent, honest and credible people who value their reputations.

Or so you would hope. Unfortunately, too many of them were cheats, frauds and chisellers and giving them the freedom to sign documents saying their own buildings were up to standard was like giving P-Platers a full licence if they promised to drive carefully and not hoon around with their mates at night.

What happened next was that the worst of them built instant slums, some of which were so bad that councils refused to issue occupancy certificates, and the insurers had to pick up the slack.

The insurance business went into meltdown and the government, having created this parlous situation, made it worse by decreeing that, if insurers weren’t going to insure them, buildings over three storeys high don’t have to have home warranty insurance.

This put the burden back on apartment owners, through their Owners Corporations, to sue the developers … and the builders … and the sub-contractors … if they still existed as legal entities. To their shock, some owners had the temerity to actually do this so the government brought in laws that made it almost impossible to even get comprehensive legal advice about whether or not you had a case.

Harsh? Follow this … under the new laws, you could not spend any more than a tiny amount of money getting legal advice without the approval of the majority of the owners. Fair rnough, you might think, but lawyers could easily charge more than your limit to put together a comprehensive assessment about whether or not you had a winnable case. So Executive Committees were having to go to owners to ask them to allow them to spend money on something they couldn’t quantify or fully explain without breaching the law and asking for proper legal advice.

To recap, in a worst case scenario, your building had no warranty insurance and you couldn’t find out if it was even worth suing the developer for defects. Meanwhile, those who did jump through all the appropriate hoops, suddenly found themselves truly up against it. Basically a bunch of home owners who just wanted what they paid for were battling teams of highly-paid lawyers hired by multinational corporations. Some of these companies seemed more interested in showing they would fight to the bitter end to avoid paying a cent to the owners they had cheated – pour encouragez les autres – than getting a reputation for being honest, decent and fair.

Meanwhile the more ruthless operators used every trick in the book to continue controlling their buildings long after they had sold every last apartment in them. The benefits of a ‘one-stop shop’ for building needs – building management, strata management, on-site management – provided by the people who knew the buildings best (i.e. the developers) or their cronies (sorry, “trusted service providers”) were promoted over the obvious value of having independent advisors working for the owners, who paid their bills, rather than the developers.

Proxy harvesting, where incumbent chairs of Executive Committees can hoover up the votes of absent or uninterested owners, helped set these fundamentally corrupt practices in stronger concrete than held up most of the buildings. Once a developer and an immovable EC chair get together, democracy and consumer rights disappear.

Meanwhile, executive committees and owners corporations are left to their own discretion to decide which by-laws they would enforce and to which they would turn a blind eye when it suited them.

People are buying into residential blocks and finding they are being taken over by short-term rentals and multi-occupancies. This is the strata equivalent of discovering a bikie gang has decided to move into your street … only much, much more common. Councils, state governments and bodies like the CTTT and Fair Trading are too busy playing pass-the-buck to do anything effective to stamp out this blight that looks like it’s based on need but really is nothing but greed.

Fifty years after pioneering strata law, NSW is way behind the times. Too many buildings are too often at war with their developers and far too often at war with themselves. Meanwhile developers claim they can’t build apartment blocks because even the bog-standard benchmarks of the Australian Building Standards make it too difficult.

This is pure unadulterated poppycock.

There are developers in this state who are building quality homes at reasonable prices without the flim-flammery that goes with promising Heaven and only delivering Hell on Earth for anyone who tries to get what they paid for.

If the apartment building industry is in decline – and at a time when the demand for homes has never been greater – it’s at least in part because potential purchasers don’t trust the product. When you go to buy a small, runabout car, the salesman doesn’t tell you it’s a Rolls Royce. Yet, when you go to buy an apartment, you the word you will hear more than any other is “luxury”.

In the seven tyers that I have been writing the Flat Chat column, one thing has become apparent. The majority of strata owners don’t want special treatment or some pie (truly) in the sky. They want what they paid for. They’re not angry becasue they can’t afford something better, they’re angry becasue they’ve been cheated.

So, Mr Minister, how about a star rating system based on what strata purchasers will actually get? One star could be a basic home built to Australian Building Standards and no more. You will be able to hear your neighbours occasionally (and they you), the facilities will not be resort standard (but then your levies will be lower) and everybody concerned will know this is an entry level home.

A three-star building would have better facilities, better sound and heat insulation and would be generally above average in every regard, including the price and the levies.

And the Five-Star home would be so well built and finished that you would barely know your neighbours were there. Facilities would be top-of-the-range (and so would prices and levies).

This, of course, is a pipe dream and will remain so as long as the good developers allow themselves to be bundled in with the bad.

So where can the Minister make strata law better for strata owners? He could start by having a look around.

In other states, defect claims are handled via government agencies who have the financial and legal clout to take on the multinational bullies and make them provide the homes they have been paid for.

In other states the number of proxy votes held by one person is limited.

In other states, Owners Corporations are obliged to enforce their by-laws; if they don’t like them, they can, of course, change them.

Right here there are problems with overcrowding, ageing buildings and ageing communities who can’t pay the rising costs of maintaining services from falling incomes. Worst of all is the sense that strata living is a necessary evil rather than a glorious opportunity to build communities.

There are many other improvements that could be imported from other states, or in the spirit that helped create the world’s first strata law 50 years ago, started from scratch.

All you have to do is put strata owners and residents (especially) first. Everything else will flow from that.

HOW I GOT (UN)INVITED TO MEET THE MINISTER (27/11/2011)

I took a very exciting phone call from someone in Fair Trading about six weeks ago. Basically they said “if you were to be invited to meet the Fair Trading minister, would you be interested?”

I suppose it’s a bit like being offered an Australia Day honour: they want to know you will accept it before they offer it so that you can’t turn round and reject it to score a political point. Not that I’ll ever be offered one.

Anyway, I said yes and they asked me what I’d most like to talk to the minister, Mr Roberts, about. Where do I begin? I am impressed that he is actually doing stuff in his portfolio but not so keen on some of the changes he’s made – like reducing the time for claiming non-structural defects to two years, for instance. If ever there was a invitation to dodgy developers to keep building crap apartment blocks, there it is, right there.

So I said I’d have a think and then a week or so later someone from Fair Trading called up and said I was clearly most interested in parking because that’s what that weekend’s column had been about. You have to realise that usually very, very few people in Fair Trading read the Flat Chat column and none of them read this website so if they do look at the paper, they think whatever I wrote about that week is my one and only area of concern.

I mean, why would they read the only regular column about their area of concern in a daily newspaper? They’re much too busy issuing Press releases about “”Bitumen Bandits” who cheat … oooh … dozens of tight-fisted farmers and home owners with their low grade driveways to be overly concerned about the way half the people in NSW will be living within the next 10 years.

So I said yes, parking is an issue but there are other things and I’ll get back to you. I then sent them an email and once you read it (below) you’ll probably understand why I haven’t heard a dicky-bird since.

But to be honest, I wouldn’t set too much store by being invited to meet the powers that be. How Government works is that you identify people who are vocal about your portfolio, give them a cup of coffee and a free gift (I have so many USB drives and pens from previous visits to lowlier functionaries, I could set up a stall at Paddy”s Market), chat about the ‘issues’ and send them on their way.

What happens next is approximately … nothing. Your visit is logged and at some point in the future if anybody asks what the Minister/Head of Department/PR person is doing about that very clever chap who writes Flat Chat, they can say they had him in for a full and frank discussion and the meeting was cordial and constructive and his views are under consideration (you’ll find them in the circular in-tray under the desk).

And if you don’t believe me, you’ve clearly never watched either Yes Minister or The Thick Of It.

Anyway, this is the gist of what I said I wanted to discuss with the Minister – and the reason, I suspect, that meeting will never happen.

My main concern with consumer protection – which covers a multitude of sins – is the basically unfair system whereby strata purchasers have no confidence that new properties are either going to be defect-free or that defects will be easy to rectify.

So far the only change has been to shorten the time in which defects can be claimed. That, and the fact that legal changes were pushed through with little consultation (or indeed, notice) has alarmed the strata community.

This suits developers who can still sell enough apartments to under-informed purchasers (first-timers and overseas investors) to make a profit – especially if they are shoddily built.

But the sophisticated and knowledgeable (and cashed-up) buyer is steering clear of new blocks because there is too much at risk. That is where your lack of confidence in the building sector comes from. Increase consumer confidence and you will increase sales and boost building – it’s as simple as that. Unfortunately those developers driving the debate are more concerned with easy and inflated profits – with the consequent diminishment of the quality of the housing stock.

There are very simple solutions available to the government – such as defect bonds for first-time developers and independent defect assessment. But it seem that – just as it was with the previous government – the developer’s profit margin is the only criterion that carries any weight when it comes to strata housing policies.

I would also like to add my concerns about the operation of the CTTT. The tightly held positions of Members who are reappointed to their positions as a matter of course every few years, has led to the creation of a bureaucratic monolith that does exactly the opposite of what it was established to do – provide a simple, low-cost avenue for the resolution of strata disputes.

The fact that serial by-law breakers can tie their executive committees in knots with years of breaches, appeals and counter-claims is a farce. The simple notion that by-laws should be observed has no currency in the CTTT, where Members often decide to grant themselves the right to favour one side or another based on their own personal prejudices. Alternatively, plaintiffs with a cast-iron case can find themselves dismissed because there may be one piece of paper missing.

It is widely accepted in the strata community that you should avoid taking disputes to the CTTT if you can humanly avoid it because the process is so painful and outcomes are so unpredictable. The tribunal has become largely self-serving and irrelevant to the realities of strata living and is more of a hindrance to building communities that it is a help.

A simple solution would be to make breaches of Notices To Comply effective immediately they have been registered with the CTTT and then let the by-law breakers be the ones who have to front up and explain why they shouldn’t have to pay them. You either let Executive Committees run their building or you don’t – and if you do, it shouldn’t be with one hand tied behind their back.

Also, owners corporations should be obliged to enforce their own by-laws – it’s too easy to say an issue is between two neighbours when in fact it is part of the good governance of the strata community. Other states manage this

I think that’s enough to be going on with and I look forward to discussing these issues with the Minister.

By the way, if you think this has ruined any chance I ever have of meeting the Minister,it won’t make a bit of difference. They don’t read my stuff and, anyway, I hear the Bitumen Bandits are on the move again. (JT- 27/11/11)

Your say on the CTTT (21/11/2011)

Last week’s column in Domain invites you to tell the powers that be what you think of the CTTT (you’ll find links to the submission process here) and while we have been critics in the past, we here at Flat Chat do feel we have a responsibility to offer some positive suggestions for improvements.  To do that, however, you have to examine where its main weaknesses are.

So at the the risk of banging the same old drum again, here in no particular order and based on six years of emails to the Flat Chat column and postings on the website, are what we reckon the main issues are.

1. Lack of consistency and clarity in decisions
2. Too much red tape
3. Inability to award costs against serial offenders
4. Inability to award costs against serial nuisance complainers

As I said, it’s very easy to criticise but what are the solutions?  Well, some are already there, if the CTTT wanted to use them.

For instance, the lack of consistency in decisions stems from different interpretations of the strata law and the by-laws of each building.  But you have to ask, why are the being interpreted to begin with. If I by-law has been properly constituted and registered, then it should be observed or changed by the correct procedure at an AGM, not open to interpretation by someone who may have no idea what it’s like to live in an apartment.

One of the most contentious issues (and where interpretation is like shifting sand) is the question of flooring.  Adjudicators, lawyers, residents and strata managers tie themselves in knots trying to get some clear guidelines when it could all be decided by a simple test of whether or not someone walking across their floor can be clearly heard in another apartment, especially when the walkers have removed the most effective insulation of them all … carpet and underlay. It’s not rocket science (although with acoustical testing demanded in some buildings, it’s getting that way).

But to get back top the point, the CTTT adjudicators should just stick to the by-laws as they are written. That said, there should be an easier  mechanism to change by-laws that are clearly inappropriate for a building but where the requisite 75 percent vote can’t easily be achieved because of apathy, vested interests and block proxy voting (but that’s another story).

On point 2, too much red tape, the CTTT really lets itself down with regard to its own aims.  This is what it says on the CTTT’s  “About Us”  web page.

The CTTT’s objectives, as set out in section 3 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001, are to ensure that:

• the CTTT is accessible
• its proceedings are efficient and effective
• proceedings are determined in an informal, expeditious and inexpensive manner
• decisions are fair and consistent.

I think any organisation where, as in one recent case,  owners in a building who feared for their physical safety from violent neighbours had their case dismissed because they failed to produce one piece of paper at the beginning of their hearing, is neither efficient, effective, fair nor consistent. And far from being informal and inexpensive, the clear message was that they would have been better off hiring a strata lawyer to dot all the Is and cross all the Ts otherwise some pompous  paper shuffler would dismiss them given the slightest excuse.

It would not be difficult to have CTTT advisors helping both complainants and defendants make sure all their paperwork in order, but they currently hide behind the excuse that they “can’t offer legal advice”.  Telling someone to make sure they have the minutes of the meeting where they decided to issue a notice to comply isn’t legal advice – it’s  common courtesy.  Most people who take their cases to the CTTT – on both sides of the cases – have never been in this kind of situation before. Giving them friendly free advice on the process would do nothing to undermine the CTTT’s charter and would actually speed the process up.

On point 3, for some serial offenders, the $550  (maximum) fine for breaching a by-law is just a minor expense, offset by the pleasure of making the neighbours who won’t let them do exactly as they please jump through the CTTT hoops to have it imposed. It’s the EC who has to build the case, collect the evidence and spend time and money doing so.  The by-law breaker doesn’t even have to turn up for the mediation, submit more than a letter (if that) for adjudication or even appear at the hearing  they demanded to appeal the result. There has to be a serious escalation of costs to the by-law breaker.  Let it be a free run to begin with, just to establish the facts of the case.  But each time after that that they are legitimately  ‘breached’, all reasonable costs should be awarded against them.  In some parts of Sydney, it’s cheaper to cop a CTTT fine for parking on common property than it is to pay for a car parking space for the duration of the CTTT process. There has to be a deterrent to serial by-law breaches or there’s no point in having by-laws at all.

I have been challenged (HERE) on point 4, and this was my response.

On the question of the serial complainer, there are many ways to resolve an issue of bad management of a strata scheme.  Firstly, all you have to do is convince the majority of your neighbours that this is the case.  They, after all, can see at first hand how well or badly the scheme is being run. I know it’s never as simple as making a compelling argument but democracy doesn’t get any more grass roots than at strata level. If you can convince enough of your fellow owners that there is a systemic problem in your strata plan, they can vote to fix it at the AGM. If they don’t care then the problem clearly isn’t that bad in their eyes.

Secondly, there is appeal to a higher Court.  These days in Strata, the first resort for appeals is the District Court where any obvious misinterpretations of the law can be heard and remedied.  It’s more expensive than running another case through the CTTT – one reason serial complainers don’t go there.

The worst serial complainers use up huge amounts of their strata plans’ and the CTTT’s resources by running variations on cases they have already lost, which have to be treated as new cases.

Their search for ‘justice’ ties up EC volunteers time and energy not to mention the costs if a strata manager or lawyer is involved (and one or the other probably will be).  When one tilt at the windmill fails, they come up with another variation and the process starts again – mediation, adjudication, hearing, appeal.

If the serial complainer happens to be a pensioner, the cost to them is negligible and if they literally have nothing better to do with their time it takes on all the hallmarks of a hobby.

What they are doing is perfectly legal but it’s clogging up a CTTT system that’s already struggling while undermining their own communities.  They also encourage CTTT members to feel very superior to ordinary strata residents (not that they need much encouragement).

We have to balance the right to a fair result with all strata owners’ rights to choose how imperfect their world is.  Yes, there is proxy stacking, a high level of ignorance of the law and, even worse, apathy that all mitigate against correcting flaws at the individual strata plan level.

But there has to be a cut-off point where the CTTT can say that one individual taking case after case against their strata plan has to stop, for everyone’s sake.

Meanwhile, check out the original story HERE to find out how to make your submissions

Getting the strata life we deserve (29/10/11)

There’s a bit of a debate going on HERE about whether a strata is just as dysfunctional when the rules are too strictly enforced as when they are too loosely interpreted.

Have look because there are valid views on both sides. But here’s my take on it, for what it’s worth:

Floored by timber salespeople (16/10/2011)

Just spent an interesting  (and wearying) weekend looking at timber floors.  The experience should have been no more frustrating than any other  trek round stores and salespeople but this one had me tearing out what little’s left of my hair.

I got more nods and winks than in a Saigon bar whenever I mentions the owners corporation, by-laws and insulation.  Most of the advice was how to “get round the stupid rules set by the boring old farts on your executive committee.”

“Just chuck a rug down for a few days if anyone complains” was a favourite.  “This millimetre thick strip of vinyl is as effective as carpet,” was a real eyebrow raiser.

“They can’t stop you doing what you want …” was fairly common. And the phrase “peaceful enjoyment of your lot’ was accompanied by much rolling of eyes.

So when I explained that a) some of ‘they’, aka the ‘boring old farts’, were my friends and b)  I wanted to comply with the by-laws, not find a way round them, I felt like I had walked into a church and asked where the atheists sat.

And it struck me, not for the first time, that it would be much better to deal with the flooring problem at source. Shouldn’t flooring sales people be primed to advise us on how to avoid problems in the first place rather than how to get round them when they inevitably arise.

Now, I have been harassing Fair Trading for years to do something about this issue.  It hurts both parties in a flooring dispute – the people downstairs who have their peace and quiet ruined by the clatter of shoes on timber, and the clatterers who end up having to rip up (or carpet over) their nice new floorboards.

Last time Fair Trading revised the model by-laws, they brought in one about hard flooring which may well be effective … but only for those new strata schemes that adopt it. The rest of us have to live with what we’ve got until we can muster the support to change our current by-laws, if need be.

But it strikes me that the next time they issue their alarm calls about “bitumen bandits” who affect … what ? … a couple of dozen people every few months, Fair Trading should think about the hundreds of thousands of strata dwellers for whom this could easily become a source of misery, if it isn’t already.

So come on Fair Trading-ites, publish a pamphlet that tells customers what the likely issues are with timber flooring and what they need to do to avoid them. And force all flooring shops to hand it out to any customers at the point of sale (rather than being hidden in a dark corner of the Interweb).

Meanwhile, if Lumberjack Lou’s Timberama offers to rip up your carpet and lay cheap flooring, ask for a written guarantee that “she’ll be right” means they will replace the floor free of charge when your neighbours take you to the CTTT.

My business – if I decide to go ahead with this – will be going to the guy who understood the issues before I mentioned them, was prepared to talk to the EC and building manager if need be about the way the floors would be laid, and didn’t say people who complained about noise didn’t ‘get’ apartment living.

Happy Flatting .

JimmyT

_____

 Several Shades of Green – October 4th, 2011

My good friend Christine Byrne of GreenStrata has been on at me for ages to create a ‘green issues’ strand in the Flat Chat Forum, promising that she will answer all the questions that I can’t  (which will be pretty much all of them).

There are heaps of things you can do to make your building greener and the added incentive that will cut through most executive committee inertia is the fact that saving the planet often saves you money.

For instance you can cut half the lighting in your garage, save half the electricity costs and still be as safe as you want to be.  You can track down water leaks in your building;  there’s too much expense attached to getting water into your building and then pumping it up to where it can be used for  you to just let it trickle away. You don’t have to do anything too radical to make a difference – just sensible will pretty much do it.

Anyway, these issues and more can now be discussed on the Flat Chat Forum HERE. The rest is up to you.

———-

I’ve just been having a go at the Strata Community Australia’s interactive Executive Committee members’ training website and I have to say it’s pretty good.  I’m going to have a concerted effort to work my way through it and if you do want to be more on the ball in your committee, you can do the same by clicking  HERE.

I also need to remind you of the SCA  Lot Owners Forum which is on again this year as part of the Strata Community Australia (NSW) – formerly the Institute of Strata Title Management – Annual Convention

The Forum will be held in the Southee Pavilion at Sydney Showground, Olympic Park, Homebush Bay on Saturday, 8 October 2011 from 9.30am, cost is $44 (including GST) for the whole day.

This year the SCA (NSW) has expanded the Forum from a half to a full day event including morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea and entry to the trade exhibition so that $44 is a bargain (IHMO).

They also have an informal dinner on the Saturday night, themed Country Comes To The City, for an additional $106.00 (including GST) including dinner and drinks. It’s from 6.00pm – 11.00pm at Southee Pavilion Lawn.

You can download the whole programme – and there are some pretty interesting speakers and topics – by clicking right here

Happy Flatting .

JimmyT

———-

At the recent Griffith University Conference on strata, there was a module on what could be done to better educate Executive Committee members about strata law. The idea of making it compulsory prior to membership of the EC was floated again (as was, somewhat more outrageously, making it a contingency of ownership) but I pointed out that many strata managers say it’s hard enough to get good people on committees as it is without adding the hurdle of a compulsory education course.

If you want a great insight into what a thankless task it can be for the people who do volunteer for their executive committees, read Struggler’s recent posting HERE.

——-

If In Doubt, Shoot The Messenger  – 25/8/11

I just made the huge mistake of reading some of the postings on the Herald’s website, relating to the parking story in last week’s column. Now I know better than most how heated things get when you discuss parking issues but, jeez, this was a fiery one.

Rob, from Brisbane, was only the first to call me several kinds of moron (because I was talking about NSW law and not Queensland’s), several posters missed the point completely (that there is no easy answer to parking problems in NSW strata) but quite a few, thankfully, calmly and logically, backed me up.

This is the problem with unfettered access to the internet – and one of the reasons it requires a little effort before you can post material on this website – angry people with extreme views get to hurl abuse anonymously and with no fear of any comeback.  The problem is that in so doing, they are often spreading misinformation and bad advice. The same person who told the world I was ten types of idiot also advised people to tow illegally parked cars.  Now, you might get away with that in the Sunshine State, but you’d be in big trouble if you tried it here in NSW.

He wasn’t alone.  My favourite was the slightly pompous: “Unless the law has changed in the 19 years since I lived in Sydney, it’s perfectly legal to tow cars parked on private property …”  Yes, well, guess what;  in the past 19 years lot of laws have changed … and one of them is that you can’t tow cars parked illegally. But, as I said, calmer voices prevailed.

“In the scheme where I am still an owner (Sydney) someone parked in front of my garage blocking my car in. The police did not want to know, but advised not to illegally touch it or have it towed,” said Pinchey, from Sydney.

“My experience in a large apartment complex has been that all clamping and towing of cars is illegal in NSW (but legal in Qld). Even if the car is parked in your private space, you are powerless to have it towed,” says Henry,  also from Sydney. “Naturally, the police don’t particularly care so all you can do is find a tow truck driver who is willing to move a car which you don’t have legal permission to move. I’ve also been advised by strata solicitors that even pasting sticky notices on car windows or windscreens is a form of vandalism and is also illegal. Bottom line, you’re powerless to do anything legal.”

And finally a handy reference from another reader. CLICK HERE for the amendment to the law the says you can’t clamp, tow, block or otherwise ‘immobilise’ an illegally parked car.

Now, I’ve got to get my head down to write my speech for a debate at the Griffith University strata conference this week.  The topic is “Purchasers are insufficiently protected in the strata title unit sale process.”  So far I have two words: “Well, d’uh!”

Happy Flatting – JimmyT

Quantity Posts from Quality Readers 9/8/11

Look, I know better than most that size isn’t everything but this is getting ridiculous. The number of daily visits to this website is now creeping up towards 900 – that’s nearly three times what it was just over a year ago.

For those of you who count “hits” (and you shouldn’t really) that’s 4.8 million since September last year.  Why shouldn’t you count hits? Because that’s more an indication of how many groovy graphics there are when you go on the site.  It’s not like ‘hits’ on YouTube (which IS an indication of how many people have viewed something). So forget the nearly 5 million hits – impressive though that sounds – the 800-plus visits per day is awesome (and scary) enough.

It’s quality not quantity that counts and in this case it’s the quality of you guys and your contributions that make all the difference.  In fact, I have had to adjust the website to display twice as many “Recent Posts” because they are coming in so thick and fast that live topics have been disappearing off the bottom of the list.

Meanwhile, I am constantly amazed at how much I don’t know about strata -  after about seven years of writing about it -  and eternally grateful for all the strata owners and professionals who put me right.

For instance, I only discovered in the past few weeks that there are four different sets of “suggested” by-laws for residential buildings. There are the by-laws in the Act, which are optional unless a new complex doesn’t adopt any by-laws, in which case they operate by default. Then there are three sets of “model” by-laws in something called the Regulations which are also optional but you have to actively adopt for them to have any effect. But you can change them … or not. Or just ignore them and come up with your own set of rules.

Confused?  It’s almost like the Fair Trading mandarins looked at the by-laws situation and said  “you know, this isn’t nearly complicated enough … let’s mix things up a bit”.  The worst aspect of this is that many owners don’t realise that the by-laws in the Act probably don’t apply to them and get very frustrated when they trip over the ones that DO affect them.

Depending on when your strata plan was formed, which by-laws were adopted at that time and how they have been amended since then, it’s safer to assume that your by-laws aren’t the same as either those in the Act or, indeed, the model ones in the Regulations.

The only way to find out which by-laws apply to you is to track down your strata plan’s by-laws and read them.

Finally, I apologise again for the shameless self-promotion of my book at the top of the page.  It’s got nothing to do with strata but  I’m told it’s selling like hotcakes, so that’s good.

Happy flatting

JimmyT

August 1, 2011…

Interesting times at the Green Strata forum last weekend.  I always get to these things where I have been invited to be a speaker, and immediately start wondering why I agreed to do it.  I’ve just got over my nerves when I look up into the audience and realise half of them are wondering the same thing.

There was a good turnout, especially considering the atrocious weather, and there was a lot of very interesting stuff which made me think we should have a ‘Greening your strata’ forum here but then I realised all I would do is refer people to the guys who really know what they’re talking about at GreenStrata.  So, if you’re interested in saving money AND the planet, go there now. (But come back soon).

Anyway, big congrats to Willoughby Council,  the Owners Corporation Network and Christine Byrne of Green Strata for organising the seminar.  About 160 people rocked up so they were very happy.

Despite last week’s column, I haven’t yet been summoned to Macquarie St to explain to the Premier the details of my masterplan to fix strata in NSW.  I can only assume he’s clearing the decks so he can give it his full attention.  (Feel free to roll around laughing.) Seriously, though, I wonder if anyone in Fair Trading or the CTTT reads either my column or this website.  The forum should be compulsory reading for the nabobs and mandarins of those two organisations – because it’s you guys telling it like it is out here in Strataland.

Come to think of it, the last time I was invited to Parliament (they do a very nice lunch) the politician I gave some advice to ended up (allegedly) assaulting a developer.  I didn’t tell him to do that … but, hey, I’m taking it as a win for us.

From July 14 …

What do we want in strata blocks?  Lively buildings where our neighbours don’t make a sound, barbecues on our balconies but no one else’s, visitors’ parking that’s free from owners’ cars … except ours.

My good friend James Valentine from ABC 702 has penned what amounts to a wish list – maybe even a prayer for strata dwellers -  pointing up in his inimitable style that many of the things we crave in strata living are mutually exclusive.  You can read it HERE.