- This topic has 2 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by .
My parent owns an ground floor apartment block with a big courtyard that runs around the corner of the building. The fencing that sperate the courtyard and the busy public footpath next to it is consists of nothing but 3 thin pieces of wire, not glass , no brick wall, just wires. They need to install some kind of screening on the INSIDE of the fence in order to:
1, add privacy, 2, secure their small pet dog which can easily absconds through the wires and 3, stop passers by from throwing rubbishes inside, which happens on a regular basis.
When they bought the property 4 years ago there was already a bamboo type garden screening installed by the previous owner. When my parents moved in they replace the old screen with a new one that was exactly the same. They done so with the acknowledgement and verbal approval from the previous two Strata managers.
All was well until the new SM comes in and suddenly request them to take down the screening saying the screening is inconsistent with the rest of the building which is a breach of the by law. We checked the by law but there is nothing specifies that no screening is allowed. It basically say you cannot do anything to your property that make it inconsistent with the appearance of the building.
They then changed the screening from the bamboo screen to a plain off white material that matches very very close to the colour of the building, and no part of the screening extends beyond the parameters of the fencing. And yet the SM continue to pressure my parents to take it down and threaten to issue NTC and even escalate to the tribunal.
I don’t believe there was a majority vote at GM regarding this issue as I have checked the record of the recent GM. We strongly suspect the SC is not even aware of this. The SM did not offer any alterative, nor did he suggest applying for approval from SC, just simply take it down or else.
Does the SM has the power to decide breach of bylaw and issue NTC without the SC vote? Can we be the one to escalate to the tribunal as we believe we have a case here? The screening does not trespass to any common property, nor does it create any nuisance or inconvenience to anyone. Had they know that screening is not allowed, they most likely would not have bought the property in the first place. The dog is nearly 10 years old and is very dear to them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.