- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 3 weeks ago by .
Hi flat chatters,
I posted previously about a tenant who had refused to remove a peep hole camera from common property. Thank you for your feedback and advice so far. Our committee have unfortunately had to take the issue to NCAT and are now required to seek legal advice and representation during the hearing. At a time when we are trying to raise funds for much needed works on the building, such as replacing windows, the committee and many owners are understandably aggrieved that they are being forced to spend this amount of money due to a tenant blatantly not following by laws. Hypothetically, if a tenant was bordering on becoming a vexatious litigant, and had form such as previous records of lodging applications with NCAT to be a nuisance and subsequently withdrawing them just before a hearing, what were the chances of seeking costs against the said tenant? Is this something NCAT routinely consider? We have had many tenants who are fed up with the process being forced upon the EC and want an end to it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.