[200William-EC SP67851] FW: SP 67851 Unit 601 Dispute Re By-Laws

[Brook Beves]

On 16/09/14 11:29, Maxine Wickey wrote:
>
> Dear Committee,
>
> Please find following and attached.  I believe I had correspondence 
> advising that this was a new installation, can you please confirm.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> **
>
> *Maxine Wickey*
>
> Strata Manager
>
> /STM RGB.jpg/
>
> //
>
> facebook_logo[1].png 
> <http://www.facebook.com/browse/admined_pages/?id=100004719999379#%21/pages/Strata-Title-Management-Group-STM/120176711475212>twitter-bird-blue-on-white.png 
> <https://twitter.com/STM_StrataManag>LinkedIn-Logo.png 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/strata-title-management-stm-?trk=top_nav_home>STM 
> Stratasphere_ICON.jpg <https://twitter.com/STMStratasphere>
>
> //
>
> *t:*(02) 9266 2600
>
> *www.stratatitle.com.au*
>
> *www.stmplus.com.au*
>
> *Emailed Communication / Documents Disclaimer*
>
> For STM's full disclaimer please visit -- 
> http://www.stratatitle.com.au/privacy.asp
>
> *Important Notice: *Owners should be aware that all correspondence, 
> including letters, facsimile transmissions and emails are retained on 
> the file of your scheme and may be subject to inspection by owners and 
> residents within your scheme, as well as prospective purchasers for 
> any lot that may be for sale within your scheme. As such author 
> discretion is advised.
>
> *From:*Thomas Shaw [mailto:tshaw at jacksonlalic.com.au]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 16 September 2014 11:25 AM
> *To:* Maxine Wickey
> *Cc:* David Lalic
> *Subject:* SP 67851 Unit 601 Dispute Re By-Laws
>
> jackson lalic
>
> *L A W Y E R S*
>
> Dear Maxine
>
> I refer to your email of 11 September 2014, and its attached 
> documentation.
>
> We note your letter makes no reference to our letter sent to you on 25 
> August 2014, and does not address our client's requests for further 
> clarification and information. A copy of that letter is */attached/* 
> for your reference.
>
> In order for our client to properly respond to your email of 11 
> September, please confirm you were aware of the contents of our letter 
> of 25 August when you sent that email.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Shaw
>
> *JACKSON LALIC LAWYERS*
>
> *Thomas Shaw*
>
> Law clerk
>
> tshaw at jacksonlalic.com.au <mailto:tshaw at jacksonlalic.com.au>
>
> *JACKSON LALIC LAWYERS PTY LIMITED   ABN*27 109 027 938 *ACN*109 027 938
>
> Level 16, 115 Pitt Street Sydney NSW 2000 *POST* PO Box Q245 Queen 
> Victoria Building Post Office, Sydney NSW 1230 *T:* 02 9262 1770 *F:* 
> 02 9262 1771
>
> ****
>
> *E: *info at jacksonlalic.com.au <mailto:info at jacksonlalic.com.au>*W:* 
> www.jacksonlalic.com.au <http://www.jacksonlalic.com.au/>*DX* 51 
> Sydney Exchange
>
> ****
>
> **
>
> IMPORTANT INFORMATION
>
> This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee(s).  
> It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information.  If 
> you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, disclosure 
> or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Confidentiality and 
> legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost 
> by reason of the mistaken delivery to you.  If you have received this 
> email in error, please delete the message and any attachments from 
> your system and notify us immediately by telephoning Sarah Curtis of 
> Jackson Lalic Lawyers on (02) 9262 1770. Unless specifically 
> indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment 
> by the sender. Liability Limited By A Scheme Approved Under 
> Professional Standards Legislation
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC mailing list
> EC at 200william.com
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
Dear Maxine

I have been asked by the EC to respond to your email.  What do you mean 
"I believe I had correspondence advising this was a new installation"?

If you are referring to the screen La Forest erected in July it is the 
same screen the subject of this complaint and Breach of By-Law proceedings.

The Solicitors letter which you have attached refers to his earlier 
letter showing 2 photos provided by La Forest alleging this screen has 
been there for some years.  In fact the photo does not show the screen 
protruding over the boundary wall where it is creating the nuisance and 
eyesore to the Occupant of 602.

So there can be no dispute and for the purpose of clarification perhaps 
you can respond to the solicitors letter attaching the photo which was 
taken 16th July showing this screen protruding over the boundary wall.  
Photographic evidence has also been taken of this screen dangerously 
flapping during windy periods which should also be brought to the 
Solicitors attention.

Regards
Brook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3789 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0003.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0002.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 966 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0004.jpe 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2898 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0003.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1055 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20140917/d91942b1/attachment-0005.jpe