• Creator
    Topic
  • #9374
    Dean
    Flatchatter

    So another day in strata paradise.

     

    A townhouse owner in our lot has installed CCTV on her external walls, even though she was explicitly refused previously as the OC intends on installing their own.

     

    Anyway, she was called out on it and she is trying every trick under the sun to not have to remove it.  After weeks of going back and forth, she is trying to have the wording of the EGM motion to read ‘all lots must remove unauthorised installations’.  Quite smart really, as while most are against the cameras, almost all units have made small changes over the years and few would vote for that.

     

    So I guess the question is, would that wording stand up?  Can you do a clean sweep of ‘unauthorised’ additions?  Is there a time limit on issuing notice to complys on changes that were made years ago and not challenged at the time?

     

    Alternatively, as we’re already completely dysfunctional, can we just repeal the ‘changes to common property’ and ‘appearance of lot’ by-laws and simply all do as we please?  Thanks!

     

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #21051
    Dean
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Thanks drshelley.

    Just to clarify, while the block is about 4 years old, all lots are still occupied by the original owners.  So any changes that have been made, were made by the current occupiers.

    Now that I think about it, basically these additions to common property were already prohibited under the current by-laws.  While we’ve acknowledged some of the previous changes, the OC has just chosen not to challenge anything before now.

    So to be fair, I guess if we challenge changes now, we need to challenge all retrospective changes as well.  This would be done through an EC vote, rather than requiring an EGM?

    #21045
    drshelley
    Flatchatter

    Dear Dean

    I am sure you can draft exclusive use by-laws for work done previously that affected common property – however, if the owner of the ‘work’ is no longer in residence I am not sure how this is covered as I am sure the current owner bought the property in good faith.

     

    If properties are not managed properly from day 1 then you reap or don’t reap the benefits/problems later.

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.