- This topic has 14 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
I am being taken to NCAT by the Strata Manager on behalf of the Owners Corporation of which I’m a part, obviously, here in suburban Sydney.
I consider I am in the right and they are in the wrong but was prepared to present my views, have them present theirs and be content with any NCAT decision either way. But the SM and my OC have engaged lawyers which my research suggested was not actually allowed. So now my own strata levy fees will be contributing to action against me, if indeed lawyers are allowed. Weird or what?
-
Replies
-
When NCAT was set up, there was an attempt to make it lawyer-free or, at least, not assume that lawyers would be needed, but allow lawyers to represent clients by mutual consent. That seems to have drifted somewhat, with some Members reportedly frustrated that they have to explain procedures to one or other side of a dispute.
In any case, if you win, under Section 90 of the Act, costs can be awarded against the other members of the owners corporation, excluding you. And they have to raise the money by a special levy that you don’t have to pay. However, I think you have to ask for costs to be awarded at the start of the proceedings as the default is that each party pays their own costs (which would, indeed, mean you were paying to take yourself to the tribunal).
If the Owners Corporation has lawyered up, it might be worth you getting representation too (especially since your grasp of strata law may be based on flawed assumptions … e.g. you weren’t aware that lawyers are allowed).
If you can’t afford an experienced strata lawyer (and there’s no point in employing any other kind), Marrickville Legal Centre will provide free legal advice and even, in extreme cases, representation at the Tribunal.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Has the engagement of the lawyer been approved, either by the Committee or the owners in a general meeting?
They would have to have received a costs agreement – I am assuming this is a non-urgent matter. The Committee can approve engaging a lawyer for non-urgent matters up to $3K. Otherwise it has to go to a general meeting.
So check what has been approved.
I might add, no actual mediation has been attempted.
Was there a notice to comply issued? If that’s the case, no mediation is required (unlike with most other NCAT actions).
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
I see you’ve turned this into an editorial. Good, but at this point in time there’s an incomplete paragraph.
Good catch. Thanks for that. Fixed now and no one will ever know.
Seems strange that there was no attempt at mediation or Notice To Comply. Enforcement of a Notice to Comply is one of the very few actions at NCAT that doesn’t have an attempted mediation as a prerequisite.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
We just had a similar situation at our small Sydney block of fewer than 40 units. A tenant refused to remove a camera at the request of the EC. Mind you it was installed on common property without the permission of the owners Corp.
The tenant was asked several times to remove it and seek permission but they refused. The owners Corp had no option but to go to NCAT and have it removed.
During this time, the tenant played silly buggers with the committee and removed it, but then sent messages to committee members saying they would just put it up again later anyway. The EC had no option but to engage lawyers to represent them as this particular tenant seemed to enjoy wasting the EC time with the frivolous nature of the claim.
Even then the lawyers requested mediation and the tenant refused. I hear the lawyers also eventually won costs against the tenant for the above. I hope your case is a good one, NCAT can be quite tough on some tenants.
The process is also quite frustrating. Some would say as frustrating as lint in a clothes dryer left on a window sill. Good luck I look forward to hearing how you get on.
“as frustrating as lint in a clothes dryer left on a window sill”, EnterSandman? That sounds a bit… fluffy. Care to explain?
Yeah, I was wondering about that. A little personal signalling going on here? Or is it some pop culture reference that has passed me by. Sounds Seinfeldian.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Seinfeld to tee Jimmy. Perplexing yet trivial. Every apartment has its Kramer/Newman
By the way, EnterSandman purports to be an authority on ‘strata living’ yet doesn’t even get his terminology right.
Does he purport to be an authority? This feels increasingly like it’s a personal squabble being played out in this forum. I’m ready to pull the plug on this.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
Sorry to hear of your NCAT experience and thank you for your advice on strata terminology. Obviously upon reading your response your hearing didn’t end well. As I warned it can be a frustrating experience.
Like you have stated, NCAT can appear to be a “law unto themselves”, however, in my experience so can some members of the owners corporation. Unless an order was issued you can always follow other avenues? Thankfully in the case I made you aware of … an order was issued.
OK, kids. Back to your corners. This discussion is now closed.
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
- The topic ‘It’s as if I’m paying to sue myself’ is closed to new replies.