Unit Titles Act Reforms

Who would argue against laws that stop people being ripped off and which give people a fairer go?

While vested interests continue their campaign against the Unit Titles Amendment Act 2008 I would like to remind readers why this legislation was needed, and that was to stop people being ripped-off by dodgy developers, strata managers and owners’ corporations.

For example, I was recently made aware of a man in a development on Northbourne Avenue. On exchange of contracts, the developer told him his body corporate fees would be $2500 per annum.

By the time of settlement they were $8500. Under the new unit titles laws this will not happen.

Another practice used by unscrupulous developers is to lock the body corporate into expensive maintenance contracts, such as lift maintenance contracts. This means the developer doesn’t pay for the lift, the owners do by paying higher fees over the period of the service contract. This legislation limits the period developers can lock owners’ corporations into expensive service contracts, effectively forcing developers to declare all costs up front.

Under the old law, one member of the owners’ corporation can veto decisions of the owners’ corporation preventing it from doing anything on common property.

I am aware of a case where this veto was used to the detriment of a disability pensioner suffering chronic pain. The pensioner required an air-conditioned to help manage pain by maintaining a steady, comfortable temperature.

But because this involved having part of the air conditioner outside her window on common property, a couple of the owners used their veto to stop it being installed.

With no ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to appeal to, the pensioner’s case went to the Magistrate’s Court. The Court found it couldn’t intervene so the matter was not resolved. Worse, the executive committee had spent thousands in owners’ funds on lawyers, and were able to do so without having to seek the approval of the owners’ corporation. The person in question continues to suffer.

Because of the new law unit owners, tenants, managing agents of townhouses and multi-storey residential apartments will all have better consumer protection and access to faster, less-legalistic and less expensive dispute resolution.

Another charge made by those campaigning against this legislation is that there was a lack of consultation. This is simply untrue. It maybe that those who are now complaining did not get all they wanted, that is not the same as lack of consultation.

The law reflects public opinion derived from 2 years of extensive consultation and the 80 submissions received once the Government took the fairly unusual step of releasing a draft of the legislation for public comment in May this year.

I am sure that during the election campaign readers will continue to see letters in this paper critical of the new laws. When they do I hope they ask themselves the question: “Who would argue against laws that stop people being ripped-off and which give people a fairer go?”