Vexatious applications to OFT and CTTT

This is one of the sticks I frequently use to beat the CTTT. According to their own website:

“The CTTT may order costs to be paid in certain circumstances, such as if the application is considered frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, or the parties are legally represented.

View clause 20 of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Regulation 2009 for the full range of circumstances where costs may be awarded.

Yet, we know from experience that they almost never use this power.  We can only hope that in the current review of strata law and practice, CTTT adjudicators are either encouraged to use this option or, when the CTTT is absorbed into the new “Super Tribunal” as is planned, they acquire a share of the collective backbone that has been so noticeably lacking when it comes to dealing with hobby litigants.

One thing that does occur to me is that you could think about collectively suing this irritating neighbour for damages for negatively affecting the values of your home and wasting Owners Corp time and money on spurious, vexatious and mischievous claims. 

Now, I hasten to add that I don’t know if that would even fly as a legal action but I do know you can take strata cases to the Supreme Court on the basis that you are seeking damages and the CTTT can’t award them. I know it’s counter-intuitive when your complaint is about already having too many legal bills but the prospect of paying serious money might persuade your neighbour to take up another hobby.

I take your point, Urban, and one man’s whistleblower is another man’s whinger, but in this particular case, it’s hardly a ‘do-nothing’ EC.  They have been dragged through the court system many times by the same plaintiff  (when surely it would have been easier to do something, if that’s the only complaint against them) and the litigant has consistently lost.  In the scenario you describe, even if the vested interests had conspired against the Lone Wolf, surely somewhere along the line his howls would have been heard by one of the Tribunals he’s inflicted on his neighbours.

@Urban Spaceman said:
Of course, the CTTT’s decisions were absolutely sensible, fair and just in this case because they simply always are, aren’t they …

Your sarcasm is a bit misplaced. You’ve been reading this website and contributing to it long enough to know that blind faith in the CTTT isn’t my view and never has been.  I’m guessing you’re frustrated at valid complaints that went nowhere. It happens – it’s wrong but it’s not everyone’s experience.

I’m also guessing – although I shouldn’t – that you haven’t been subjected to the withering onslaught of well-funded lawyers who have access to unlimited resources and whose petulant paymasters want you to suffer just because they didn’t get their way and you, doing the right thing, were the cause of that. 

Sleeplessness nights, wondering if you’re going to lose your home, asking yourself if it would be easier to turn up if court and lie, saying you did do all the terrible things you’ve been accused of, just so they call off the dogs and you can get what’s left of your life back. That’s the flip side of this coin.

The CTTT isn’t always wrong (although they often are) and the campaigning owner isn’t always right, just because they won’t give up.  We see plenty of tales of owners here in this forum who’ve grabbed the wrong end of the stick and won’t let go. Winning soon becomes more important than being right and if they have the time and money to make others’ lives a misery, then they will do so.

By the way, “the Executive Committee members have all done that new course which ensures they know the NSW Strata Titles Act back-to-front” is a good thing, right?  But, yes, perhaps too many EC members are on their committee purely to protect their own interests – although that may be nothing more sinister than making sure the building is properly maintained and run in accordance with the laws and by-laws.

And some are do-nothing talking shops who resent any attempts from the outside to challenge their authority.  But that’s life – people are different but what most of us want, really, is just a quiet life.

I should know by now that every time I tell myself I shouldn’t make assumptions I’m about to find out exactly why that’s the case.
You could add another two zeroes to the case I was talking about but the principles are the same – people misusing the law to beat their neighbours into submission.
And good luck getting your story in the papers! It’s taken me ten years to get past the “nobody cares” attitude of news desks to strata … and even then it’s a struggle.

@JimmyT said:
I should know by now that every time I tell myself I shouldn’t make assumptions I’m about to find out exactly why that’s the case.
You could add another two zeroes to the case I was talking about but the principles are the same – people misusing the law to beat their neighbours into submission.
And good luck getting your story in the papers! It’s taken me ten years to get past the “nobody cares” attitude of news desks to strata … and even then it’s a struggle.

$10,000 was the amount anticipated in our recently passed budget to deal with a few owners who would not accept a negotiated solution to a serious problem that the vast majority of our owners were happy with. 

Unrelated, but when the ACT had important and valuable changes to its Unit Titles legislation last year (passed unanimously by Liberal, Labor and Greens members) all the evening news was about some other sensationalist stuff I have already forgotten. 

This situation truly exposes the CTTT and the system for the ridiculous masquerade that it is.