Vancouver mourns after a deadly festival tragedy, the Vatican prepares to elect a new Pope, and not all principals are convinced by the Government's teaching mandates.
A Newmarket resident has been fined $7000 after neighbours complained about unsightly and unhygienic effects from her feeding birds outside an apartment building.
The Tenancy Tribunal ordered Jill Veronica Watt, of Khyber Pass Rd, to pay the fine after her body corporate acted on neighbours’ complaints, although it did not go ahead with trying to recoup costs for building painting work.
Watt acknowledged having a habit of feeding birds in the courtyard of her unit.
Photographs taken between June and August show the number of birds frequenting the unit and the extent of their droppings on the pergola over her courtyard, balcony railings and nearby units.
A neighbouring unit owner gave evidence of the effect on his use and enjoyment of his unit, of the presence of the birds and their droppings.
Rental appraisals were provided from mid-August, showing a reduced prospective rent return from his unit without the bird droppings being cleaned away.
His evidence was that the property manager providing the appraisals would not rent the premises with access to the balcony because of the droppings.
The evidence suggests similar concerns being expressed by other unit owners, the tribunal decision says.
Bird droppings were a big problem at the apartments. Photo / Thinkstock
The body corporate arranged extensive cleaning last April that improved the condition or presentation of the building somewhat.
But the neighbour said Watt’s bird feeding had continued and the problem with accumulated bird droppings increased once again.
The neighbour was unable to comment on the cleaning work Watt recently had done, which she says shows the bird droppings could be removed quite quickly and easily.
Watt was told she had breached the apartment owners’ rules by feeding birds, leading to an unsightly and unhygienic condition of the building and causing damage to common property paintwork.
The body corporate wrote to her, although Watt told the tribunal because she was not conversant with email, she received only one of those notices, which she believes was in September.
She was unable to recall whether that was a notice from the body corporate or its lawyers.
Watt says after receiving that notice, she did modify her habit for several months by feeding the birds only outside the property on the berm, and she was told on good authority this was not a breach of the rules.
She acknowledges, though, that after becoming concerned for the birds’ wellbeing, she resumed her practice of feeding them in her courtyard.
Watt must pay $5956 in legal costs leading up to the tribunal hearing, $575 for that hearing and a further $500 filing fee, resulting in the total award against her of $7031. The money was due immediately.
