the maintenance mêlée

Another issue which needs to be addressed here is maintenance and the behaviour of the maintenance committee. The co-op has asserted that the property is in excellent condition, being only twelve years old. This is generally true, though it fails to take account of the effort and expense to Anna of maintaining and enhancing the property. She has spent some $6000 in the past twelve months on improvements to her property, with a view to long-term tenancy. It should be noted that neither she nor other CHOW members are ever thanked for making these improvements, and this is another cause for resentment.

Before Anna moved into the property she insisted, encouraged by the outgoing tenant, that the house be painted internally and externally, as no painting had been done in over ten years. She was told that ‘unless you insist, the co-op won’t do it’. She also insisted that as the incoming tenant she should have some say, in consultation with the co-op, as to the colour and type of paint. This would seem to be eminently reasonable and is standard practice in most co-ops. However, these demands met with much resistance, and when a general meeting reversed the maintenance committee’s decision to paint the exterior windows against the wishes of the tenant, who wanted them to be revarnished, one of the Maintenance Committee members said to Ella, ‘don’t think that this is your victory.’

This is just one example of the petty-minded and aggressive behaviours directed towards Anna by the maintenance committee in the course of her tenancy. The list is exhausting, but a couple of examples should be noted.

On the day that she was to move into the property Anna was prevented from entering by her neighbour and fellow CHOW member Alison because she hadn’t yet obtained a second payslip from her work, required to calculate her rent. Anna explained that she would get the pay-slip the next day, but Alison was adamant, and argued very loudly with Anna outside of the premises. Anna was only able to move in after Alison rang the finance officer for advice. The delay and stress caused by this incident resulted in the opening inspection, which took place on that day, being curtailed. Anna said she’d have a closer look at the rooms and report any further maintenance problems within the next couple of days, and this was agreed to by the Tenancy Officer. This was duly done.

A month a and a half later the maintenance committee made a lengthy complaint about Anna in its report to the March general meeting. It contained a number of distortions, and omitted to mention their intimidation of Anna at a recent maintenance inspection, which caused her to have to take time off work. It implied that the additions made to the original opening inspection report were somehow ‘sneaked in’. The report suggested that Anna’s maintenance concerns (letter of Feb 17 2004) were mostly trivial, though at least one, the stormwater drain, turned out to be very serious, requiring outside intervention before anything was done about it. Another, the garden gate, still hasn’t been fixed though it has since deteriorated considerably.