Big-Buck Bullies

Published: 15 July 2008.

By Jimmy Thomson for the Sydney Morning Herald

A couple of readers have flagged the emergence in Strataland of rich owners who want to renovate, ignoring bylaws and telling their executive committees that if they don't approve their "improvements" they'll fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.

In one case, a new owner's demands - including a noisy polished concrete floor and a huge air-conditioning pump on their balcony - are in clear breach of the building's bylaws, for obvious and good reasons. But the bully boy has threatened that his highly paid lawyers will drag the volunteers of the committee through the courts - a monstrous expense to all his neighbours and a huge stress to the ordinary people who will have to run the case.

Once the case is settled (you would hope against the new owner who knew what the bylaws were before he bought in), those highly paid, tax-deductible lawyers will make sure that only a proportion of costs are awarded against him.

The building could be tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket and suffer years of rancour and frustration, all because fat cats in the penthouse flats have to get their way. In both cases reported to me, the committee's attitude is "bring it on" but elsewhere the temptation to let the bullies have their way must be huge, despite the dangerous precedent that it would set.

The next time the Office of Fair Trading reviews the strata laws, let's include one that says any vexatious and unfounded litigation against well-constituted and entirely legal bylaws should cost the defending owners not one jot. All costs should be awarded against the plaintiff and let's whack in a threat of punitive damages, too. That should give the fat cats upstairs something to chew on.

By the way, in what looks like another win for antisocial, selfish scumbags, I'm told the Supreme Court recently ruled that strata law doesn't guarantee recovery of all legal costs when owners' corporations pursue unpaid levies.

This decision is apparently under appeal but heaven help us if it is confirmed. Just what do apartment owners have to do to get some genuine legal protection in this State?

Reply from: nick

16 July 2008

Last time I checked, it was every Australian's legal right to access the Supreme Court system. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Granting absolute power to a committee of volunteers, who have no legal or professional experience to speak of is, in my view, lunacy. Resolving issues like this is the exact reason we have a judicial system.

It seems, from where I'm standing, that the only bully in this scenario is the power-crazed committee members dictating what floor coverings owners may have in their own homes and think because they freely volunteered to chair a BC they're somehow more qualified and powerful than a supreme court judge... my god... the egos these people must have.

Reply from: Kent

9:08pm Wednesday, 16 July 2008

Some people in apartments really should mind their own business more. If they aren't capable of doing this, apartment living really isn't the ideal living arrangement for them.

Occassionally you'll hear and (god forbid) even see your neighbours.

If apartment residents have any hope of living together in relative peace we need to accept these facts and get over this petty nonsense. Love thy neighbor, or live on acerage.

Reply from: Len

2:09pm Thursday, 17 July 2008

Try living in an apartment where the upstairs neighbour has replaced carpet with tiled floor and the ladies wear high heels - Riverdance on the ceiling - while the downstairs neighbour want to demolish a wall that supports your floor.

Committees with egos? I hope so!

Reply from: Nick

8:40pm Thursday, 17 July 2008

Heh - actually I do live in an apartment where upstairs has a tiled concrete floor. Sure I hear the tapping of feet but like Kent said, its part of living in an apartment. Thats why you pay three times more money for a house :).

My gripe with the article is that it's calling an owner a bully for exercising his legal right to the supreme court - but if the owner didn't apply for permission with his committee, you can be certain they'd drag him to court faster than he could blink. To be fair - both owner and comittee should be entitled to access courts or neither party should.

Reply from: Len

9:10pm Thursday, 17 July 2008

Body Corporate Committees don't write the rules. The State Governments does that via their Body Corporate Acts. When people buy into Community Title Schemes they also buy into the rules that apply to CTSs.

Why should the majority who abide by the rules suffer when one individual decides these rules do not apply to him/her/them.

People buy into CTSs for a variety of reasons. They don't expect to have to fight the Supreme Court to have peaceful enjoyment of their home nor foot the bill for someone else to go to the Supreme Court or any other court.

Jimmy Thompson's article may be overstating the case but the fundamentals are right. Basis problem is the Body Corporate Law which is largely written on the basis everyone is going to be reasonable when in fact they often are not.

Reply from: Nick

5:04am Friday, 18 July 2008

The Strata Titles Act is written and enforced by the State Government but the Body Corporate Bylaws are written and enforced by the committee.

As an owner you'll occassionally receive proxy voting forms - these votes are for various ammendments to your bylaws. As an owner, you write these laws for your building.

Obviously State Government legislation should (and does) take precedence over Body Corporate Bylaws because the system works on the principal that everyone SHOULD be reasonable, but in fact, they are often not.

When either party (an owner, or the committee) is being unreasonable in the eyes of the other party, that's when the matter can be heard by a Supreme Court Judge. It may seem unfair - but the alternative is an all-powerful committee where members can rule as they please and answer to no-one. If I wanted to live in a place like that I'd move to North Korea. :)