Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
The other side of the coin… and this is going to come across as excessively negative but it cost our scheme a lot of money and put the residents through 18 months of hell, hounded one elderly resident so much that we all genuinely believe the stress contributed to her death and delayed essential maintenance works for the scheme…
A number of years back we had someone move into our scheme “temporarily” who claimed to have allergys to perfumes and other chemicals and had found a quack to declare it as a disability. Being the kind trusting people we were we said no problem we’ll delay the works 6 months.
Well 6 months was the first lie. Turned out even the alergy was a lie as the resident in question was caught out on camera doing things that didn’t align with the allergy. But because it was a “disability” we were threatened with disability discrimination every time we said or did anything.
In the end she did raise a disability discrimination complaint against the scheme and luckily we found a good lawyer who got her to admit to more lies in mediation.
The general outcome from a legal perspective was that majority rules. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to live as though they have an allergy because one person chose to live in a location that was generally unsuitable for them.
It’s unfortunately harsh but its the reality of the situation.
The only thing the OP can actually do is find somewhere more suitable to live. Yeah it sucks particularly if your allergy is genuine and not a scam like our troublemaker.
In high density areas though, the situation is only going to intensify for the OP.
People use their balconies because driers are expensive to run and because common drying areas are great for getting your clothes stolen or damaged.
29/05/2019 at 10:35 am in reply to: Carping and complaining – the other side of naming and shaming #37868Expanding on Cosmo’s post…
Group 1a: Committee members who won’t do a thing until it is something affecting them and then they want it done immediately and jump up and down about it. I have seen cases where such owners have demanded repairs affecting their unit but won’t do anything to facilitate them being done as that is “the committee’s job” This angers Group 1.
The behaviour of this sub group of people is worst of all in my opinion.
That’s one of the most disgusting court decisions I’ve ever seen.
So if her email is worth 120,000 damage to his reputation, how much is the media’s reporting of his behaviour now worth to him?
01/03/2019 at 11:01 am in reply to: SM commissioned "compulsory" engineering report in secret #36072You called it 6 pages of rubbish to say…
At the time of inspection, no reportable external cladding was identified on the building facades, pursuant to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Identification of Buildings with External Combustible Cladding) Regulation 2018.
Thanks guys.
Much appreciated.
Actually I think I’d prefer to pay a bit extra for someone I could trust but that’s often impossible when you’ve got a committee that always chooses cheapest.
I don’t know who asked these particular contractors to quote for us but they were probably recommended by the strata agents. Certainly we don’t have a history with them and we have had some major work done in the last 10 years with the entire switchboard having being upgraded.
Actually the managing agent hasn’t figured him out yet. The Agents have just switched the staff member assigned to us. The previous staff knew not to deal with him due to his screw ups.
The only saving grace is that the Agents want everything to come back to them via the secretary (me) in order to cut down on the emails they have to sift through. This is pissing this guy off no end too. In fact, despite stating that they only want to hear back via the secretary in nearly every communication in the last 12 weeks this guy insists on trying to keep all of this secret from everyone else.
And he flat out denies the existence of what the strata managers have written in every email.
@robj said:
If their lease has expired a landlord can give them 90 days notice to vacate, without specifying a reason. Of course, they could challenge the order, claiming that it’s retaliatory, but a tribunal must consider the EC’s obligation to maintain the property.Are you not able to contact the owner of the property?
The owner is a relative of the tenant. We think we’ve nailed the issue though. Some basic research has shown up a clear precedent and also there is clear exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act so at this stage it just looks like we’re being taken advantage of by forcing us to deal with false claims in order to distract us from doing what needs to be done.
@Missy said:
Taking this from another view point, has this person ever sat down and explained their condition or what the chemicals can be used? It seems unreasonable that they void everything without any explanation or their condition.Yes, we’ve had the explanation about what they’re specifically allergic to. Everything was the answer and in minute quantities.
That of course is bogus because we know that they’ve been exposed to various petroleum, insecticidal and alcohol based chemicals with no effect.
We have 2 complaints raised already which are in conciliation with the HRC.
The Human rights commission doesn’t actually conciliate. Their process is to rubber stamp whatever the complainant puts them regardless of how much merit it has.
The only determination that is made with respect to discrimination has happened or not is by a court. Sadly the conciliation process is a mechanism to drag things out indefinitely to the point where the respondent just gives up and agrees to anything because they can’t afford the legal costs and they just want it to go away.
We’ve already gone through Fair Trading mediation with the landlord and that actually went well because we were able to tip their hand somewhat in that they changed their demands with the HRC to something even more ridiculous and unreasonable.
Basically no maintenance unless the building is about to fall down.
It showed that they’re not doing this for any reason other than to cause trouble.
Thanks guys.
When challenged in court we’ll win, there’s no doubt about that but no legal action is without costs and we’re not the richest scheme on the block.
That’s ultimately the crux of it. We don’t want to drain our funds on lawyers but hopefully the cttt will help us act.
-
AuthorReplies