Flat Chat Forum By-laws and outlaws Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #51039
    AvatarBendeleine
    Flatchatter
    Chat-starter

    Hi

    My strata manager issued a breach notice alleging that a fixture had been installed on common property. However, they did not respond to any calls/emails so that my property manager/I could ascertain what the actual issue was as we had no knowledge of the fixture, nor the tenant.

    The strata manager, then, without consulting us or responding to the calls, arranged for the removal of the fixture and the associated repairs. The costs were invoiced to me. Once we found out what the fixture was, in actual fact it was installed by the tenant. However, I subsequently obtained quotes if I had arranged for the removal myself, the cost would have been materially lower.

    Two questions:

    (a) Is the strata manager required to give me a reasonable opportunity to remedy the situation myself?

    (b) does the strata manager have an obligation to ensure only reasonable costs are incurred?

    Thanks

     

     

     

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #51139
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster

    Send them a bill for the damage to your property.  That might have them scuttling off to check strata law.  You shouldn’t have installed anything on common property without permission but then they shouldn’t have removed it without due notice.

    But you are not alone, as this clip from Frasier testifies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72-jyaGMSkc

    #51060
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster

    So to answer your questions

    Yes

    Yes.

    We introduced the “quote” option so Flatchatters could reproduce the section of the posts to which they were referring, rather than having people scrolling up and down to work out what you were saying “yes” to.  It’s easy to use.  You just cut out the bits to which you aren’t specifically referring and then reset your answer in normal type (Not quote).

    You can even break quotes up with answers for each part. It’s pretty simple and makes it a lot easier for people to know what you are responding to.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by .
    #51055
    Avatarkaindub
    Flatchatter

    A breach notice , technically a notice to comply, requires the nature of the infraction to be specifically identified. Obviously to save confusion as to what the issue is.

    If the notice you received did not have this information, I’d argue you had little chance of rectifying the issue.

    Similarly, the issue of the notice does not provide the OC the right to rectify the problem. Once a notice is issued, you have a certain time to fix the issue. The OC then has to apply to NCAT for further directions.

    I can see that the SM has probably erred in these respects.

    So to answer your questions

    Yes

    Yes.

    I would not pay these charges. Let the OC chase you for these costs (probably too small to warrant legal action). You will not be barred from the right to vote at meetings, as you can only be barred if you owe levies.

    The SM should have made more effort to tell you of the charges and the action they were taking.

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Forum By-laws and outlaws Current Page