|
|
|
FLAT
A flat consists of two rooms, kitchen and bathroom.
The rooms are not very big. As we can see from thoes photographs, the hight
of the walls are quite low. This construction make the rooms very acustic
in the sense that all steps in the neighbouring flats are well heared and
are very disturbing. This can be
very disturbing and can be very damaging for health when in the flat above
there is wooden floor (especially parquet). It is important to underline
that the ceiling is very thin and ist contruction is very pooerly design. As
a result, the flat is some sort of a resonane box. In original desing of
the building floors were covered by carpets which absorbed noise of steps
or other bumpuing on the floow. Unfortunately, some owners broke the rule
of the original desing and instead of carpets insalted parquet. Noone from
the Body Corporate has right to make the decision to change a vital part of
the construction of the building. These flats were designed as places for
living with minimal care about the comfort of living in those flats. Making
those chagnes by some owners made it unberable to live in. In the flat 22, above
our flat, the parquet was installed and from that time we suffered a very
big damage to our health. Mr Bennett, who was the owner of the flat, was
aware of this. He thereated us that in a few months we will be on the
street. At first, we did not understand what does it mean that threat but when
the tenats who rented his flat started to live in, oftne they walk in the
flat in shoes so we were very often awaken and we started to have problems
with heart and other health conditions. When we started to complain, Mr
Bennett sold the flat and a new owner rented the flat to Mr Harrison. From
that time living in our flat became unberable. We took this matter to the
court¸ and the owner was obliged to cover the floor with carpets. From that
time Mr Harrison became much more troublesome. Beside of the decision of
the court, the floor was not covered by carpet. A new tenant started to be
even more troublesome and his behaviour became very dangerous for our
health. As a result, and based on the doctor advice, we had to move out
form our flat in order to avoid a very big damage to our health or even to
be killed. The owner of the flatt 22 is very aware of destroying our health
and put pu life at risk. We feel that the owner very purposefuly used
tenants to make a big damage to our health or even to kill. As Mr Bennet
told us, this is a common practice for some owners to take over as many
flats in the building as they can. Until now we do not have a name or the
address of the owner in order to take this matter to the court. Mr Klein
sent is fals information and the police did not give us this information. As
far as we know Ms Skaro, who bought a flat a few year ago, also installed
parquet. Ms Skaro is working in a real estate and she from the beginning of
living in this building, became a director of the body corporate. It was in
that time when we were not invited to the directors meetings by Mr Klein.
It was the worst case of the mobbing we ever faced. Ms Skaro is very aware
that installing the parquet is very damaging to health of the person living
in a flat below. In the flat below was living an old and ill man. He
complained about this and he soon died, probably as a result of the changes
of the original design. We suspect that it could be many more cases of such
a cruel purposeful damagining to the health or even killing on this
building. It is important to
underline once more that noone from the Body Corporate is authorised to
change original design of the building, especaily those which are hazardous
to health.
As we can see form the
picture, windows which were changed during new windows installation, were
very poorly installed. They are not well fitted and by this there is a big financial
damage in terms of gas and electricity bills. Prof. Les, as an engineer,
did not agree of installation of such a ‘rubbish’ in the place of the windows
which were originally designed and which, in most cases, worked very well. As
a director and a professional adviser, our proposal was to advice all
owners to install new windows (if it was necessary) to fulfil the standard
of energy saving and isolation from noise. Noone from the Body Corporate
has right to install any windows without agreement of the owner. Noone from
the Body Corporate has right to act to make very big damage not only to the
owners but also to the state of Another matter is a very big noise which is coming from the street which now became a very busy street. Our advice was to install double-glazed windows which fulfil both of the standards: safety and energy saving. In our flat a double-glazed window was installed and the comfort of living was very notifiable. The cost of installation of double-glazed windows is not much higher however a quality of installation and both of those factors are incomparable. Mr Klein and some other directors forced us, by blackmail, to pay nearly 10000$ for the rubbish windows which we not allowed to install in our flat. It is important to underline that nobody from the Body Corporate has the right to install the windows in our flat. |
|
|
Copyright the Queen Jadwiga Foundation
Adres:
The Queen Jadwiga Foundation
