the neighbour
But I haven’t time to turn the case into a dubious narrative, I must professionally appeal against the decision of this co-op not to release Anna’s property. The decision was unjust and unreasonable, even oppressive, because it failed to take into account or to acknowledge the dysfunctionality and extreme inflexibility of the co-op, and the stress that this has caused to Anna, and indeed to other Members who are prepared to question co-op processes and decisions.
Anna and other appellants were initially given no reason for the decision of the co-op not to agree to the transfer of property, and were only given reasons just over a week ago, upon the request of one appellant. The document providing the reasons is unsigned, undated, and we have no idea who wrote it or whether it reflects the views of the whole of the co-op or one or two members.
While it is accepted that the property is a good one in terms of location and overall quality, the implied argument in the document, that the property would not be easily transferable due to the shared water meter and shared driveway, doesn’t stand up. Separate meters can be provided for properties, and the driveway is also shared by an adjacent two-story property, which isn’t a co-op property.
However, there is another problem with this property, not mentioned in the document, a problem which could well be alleviated by splitting the property off from the co-op. Anna’s next door neighbour, Alison Campbell, is also a co-op member, and Anna has experienced serious problems with this neighbour from the day she moved in, culminating in an alleged assault on December 9 2004, which has been referred to the police. Previous tenants have also had difficulty with this tenant over numbers of years, and there is a supporting letter from the immediately previous tenant to this effect. The neighbour has interfered with and questioned tradespeople visiting the property and even takes photos of visitors. At a mediation session, the neighbour was told that this behaviour, which has been going on since at least 2001 (see letter from Pam Papadelos, 8/8/01) was wrong. However, she continues to photograph people who visit Anna, including myself only a couple of weeks ago.
No information was provided to Anna about the neighbour problem before she accepted the property. Since disputes have arisen, no sympathy has been shown to Anna in her difficulty by any co-op member (apart from another appellant) even after the incident which led to the police being contacted. Moreover, the neighbour, as a long-standing member of the co-op, has enjoyed the protection and support of other long-standing members, who appear to be in complete denial about this difficult and extremely stressful situation. It’s noteworthy and I think extraordinary that no documents or correspondence pertaining to this issue have been presented by the co-op.
The stress for Anna in having to front up to meetings at which this neighbour is present and enjoying the support of other powerful co-op members cannot be underestimated. Anna believes, I think with good reason, that if her house was transferred to another co-op or association, the stress for her would be greatly reduced as any dispute could be dealt with under the RTA, and she believes that the neighbour would ‘lose interest’ if they ceased to be associated under one co-op. Moreover, due to the co-op’s complete denial of this problem, it’s inevitable that, if Anna left the property, the next tenant would experience similar harassment. This raises the question of whether the co-op, considering its unco-operativeness and extreme insensitivity in this matter over many years, deserves to retain this property.
Anna and other appellants were initially given no reason for the decision of the co-op not to agree to the transfer of property, and were only given reasons just over a week ago, upon the request of one appellant. The document providing the reasons is unsigned, undated, and we have no idea who wrote it or whether it reflects the views of the whole of the co-op or one or two members.
While it is accepted that the property is a good one in terms of location and overall quality, the implied argument in the document, that the property would not be easily transferable due to the shared water meter and shared driveway, doesn’t stand up. Separate meters can be provided for properties, and the driveway is also shared by an adjacent two-story property, which isn’t a co-op property.
However, there is another problem with this property, not mentioned in the document, a problem which could well be alleviated by splitting the property off from the co-op. Anna’s next door neighbour, Alison Campbell, is also a co-op member, and Anna has experienced serious problems with this neighbour from the day she moved in, culminating in an alleged assault on December 9 2004, which has been referred to the police. Previous tenants have also had difficulty with this tenant over numbers of years, and there is a supporting letter from the immediately previous tenant to this effect. The neighbour has interfered with and questioned tradespeople visiting the property and even takes photos of visitors. At a mediation session, the neighbour was told that this behaviour, which has been going on since at least 2001 (see letter from Pam Papadelos, 8/8/01) was wrong. However, she continues to photograph people who visit Anna, including myself only a couple of weeks ago.
No information was provided to Anna about the neighbour problem before she accepted the property. Since disputes have arisen, no sympathy has been shown to Anna in her difficulty by any co-op member (apart from another appellant) even after the incident which led to the police being contacted. Moreover, the neighbour, as a long-standing member of the co-op, has enjoyed the protection and support of other long-standing members, who appear to be in complete denial about this difficult and extremely stressful situation. It’s noteworthy and I think extraordinary that no documents or correspondence pertaining to this issue have been presented by the co-op.
The stress for Anna in having to front up to meetings at which this neighbour is present and enjoying the support of other powerful co-op members cannot be underestimated. Anna believes, I think with good reason, that if her house was transferred to another co-op or association, the stress for her would be greatly reduced as any dispute could be dealt with under the RTA, and she believes that the neighbour would ‘lose interest’ if they ceased to be associated under one co-op. Moreover, due to the co-op’s complete denial of this problem, it’s inevitable that, if Anna left the property, the next tenant would experience similar harassment. This raises the question of whether the co-op, considering its unco-operativeness and extreme insensitivity in this matter over many years, deserves to retain this property.
posted by Stewart at 9:21 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home