Flat Chat Forum By-laws and outlaws Current Page

  • Creator
  • #58332

    I have just found out that one of the (always troublemaking) owners in our building, has been taking the “contractors key” (the security swipe that allows access to all floors) and using it to put flyers under doors (that have nothing to do with the committee).

    He has apparently taken it from the concierge desk when no-one was around – it’s now been moved to a secure spot.

    The committee has received complaints from other owners about their floors being accessed (we have floor-by-floor security).

    Is there any action we can take against this person? Thank you in advance.

    • This topic was modified 1 week, 6 days ago by .
Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #58361

    Instead of taking action against the trouble maker, I would approach the issue differently.

    Assuming the concierge is where the key is best kept for tradesmen to use, I would do the following:

    1. Keep the key with the concierge as that is where tradesmen are used to collecting it;
    2. When contractors are not using the swipe key (eg when they hand it back to the concierge) I suggest you get it deactivated, making it useless. This is what happens in many apartment bldgs; and
    3. Reactivate the key when the contractors/tradesmen arrive for work.

    Soon enough the trouble maker will realise “game over” for him and you and the others suffering from his actions will get the solution you want quickly and simply.

    Good luck.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 4 days ago by .

    We’ve had another email from a person I suspect is in the same block (the email addresses are different but the circumstances are very similar).  This is what the second email said:

    We have a problem owner in our building who thinks he has run of the place.

    In the most recent breach, he grabbed the access all areas key from the concierge desk (when the concierge wasn’t there) and helped himself to all floors to drop anti-committee letters under doors. This happened about 2-3 months ago.

    I’m so appalled at the owner’s actions and other things he has done. He was once caught moving a security camera (the same camera recorded him doing it) and he then took over a storage cage belonging to someone else.

    He is repeatedly breaching our building’s security and I wonder what can be done about it, and whether these incidents are also police matters?




    I think you first need to look at your by-laws and see if there is anything there that might be used to curb this miscreant’s activities. There probably isn’t in the standard by-laws, but yours may have something.

    Then I think you need to look at introducing by-laws that would curb their activity, such as a by-law that says residents can only enter another level if invited by a resident of that level to do so.

    Then have a look at Sections 153 (b) and (c) of the Act, which say:

    153   Owners, occupiers and other persons not to create nuisance

    (1)  An owner, mortgagee or covenant chargee in possession, tenant or occupier of a lot in a strata scheme must not—

    (b)  use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of the common property by the occupier of any other lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the common property, or

    (c)  use or enjoy the common property in a manner or for a purpose that interferes unreasonably with the use or enjoyment of any other lot by the occupier of the lot (whether that person is an owner or not) or by any other person entitled to the use and enjoyment of the lot.

    Now, as we have discussed many times in these pages, it’s very hard to nail down what “nuisance” is in strata law terms.  And it certainly isn’t merely something that annoys neighbours – it has to do actual or potential harm or prevent residents from enjoying the rights that come with owning and renting in a building.

    And then there is another aspect to this, which comes under the general heading of “assery”- a non-legal term that I have just invented which I would say applies to someone pushing the boundaries and occasionally crossing the line for no better reason than to annoy their neighbours.

    One option open to you might be to effectively “name and shame” this resident by publicly confronting them with the general disapproval of their behaviour.  And one way to do that would be to hold a general meeting to propose new by-laws to curb specific behaviour, as suggested above, and to .a proposal to to take legal action against this resident. (The legal action doesn’t have to be a real prospect – the meeting is the key).

    At that meeting – which would have to be chaired by a confident and forceful presence –  you would set out how much distress this person has caused in the past and what you options might be for the future.

    Part of this meeting would include a rundown of the costs this person’s behaviour has incurred both in financial terms through additional management costs and in personal terms through the unnecessary stress his actions have caused.

    You would invite the miscreant to explain their actions and give an undertaking to stop harassing committee members and to make their issues known though normal channels and procedures.

    You might also canvass other options such as Personal AVOs, more by-laws and seeking orders at NCAT.  You might then lay out the financial costs to the strata scheme of pursuing these actions and how unlikely it would be to get any of the costs returned as NCAT does not award damages.

    Finally, and I would actually make this your priority, you could contact our sponsors Strata Answers who can intercede on your behalf and have a stack of experience in dealing with strata assery in many, many forms.

    Does anyone else have any other thoughts.


    Instead of taking action against the trouble maker, I would approach the issue differently.

    This is not about the key, it’s about the behaviour of a resident who thinks he can do as he pleases in the building.




    My take on it would be slightly different from Jimmy’s. In that before calling the meeting to name and shame or push a By-law.

    I would ensure that the culprit was contacted to find out what their complaints are. That way you can see if there are any true concerns or if its just (Mister Crazy) as I suspect.

    That way when push comes to shove over the reason for the meeting and the potential need for the By-law, you have an nice clean history of the need to do so.

    So if it goes further say to NCAT you can clearly show that all your actions were required because of the behaviour of the other party. (Dear Member the OC was unfortunately forced into taking such drastic action).

    Remember (Mister Crazy) will not understand what a name and shame is, because its you who are always wrong not them.



    We’re replying to the initial teaser put out by Keymaster where he referred to Qld’s Nuisance S167 legislation.  The problem that appears in Qld is that lawyers, body corp managers, caretakers and committee members use S167 to call owners’ names. But the legislation refers to ‘behaviour,’ not name-calling.

    Name calling often goes on without facts or evidence to support those statements and is used to divide and conquer bodies corporate, while isolating the individual who may not have done anything wrong.

    Disempowering owners through name-calling, labelling and stereotyping is all a part of a culture in Qld that breaches the Human Rights Act, as it’s oppressive.







Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Forum By-laws and outlaws Current Page