Connecticut Senate Bill SB00129

Connecticut 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/10
• Refer: 2/10/10
• Report Pass: 3/16/10
• Refer: 3/19/10
• Report Pass: 3/25/10
• Refer: 4/8/10
• Report Pass: 4/14/10
• Report Pass: 4/16/10
• Refer: 4/21/10
• Report Pass: 4/27/10

Caption

An Act Establishing An Office Of Condominium Ombudsman.

Impact

With the establishment of this office, SB00129 will significantly enhance the regulatory framework governing condominiums and common interest communities. The new office intends to enhance the ability of unit owners to voice complaints and seek remediation for grievances, such as violations of a bylaw, budgetary concerns, or access to public records. As a result, this could lead to more structured governance within community associations and a clearer pathway for homeowners to seek action without significant legal costs.

Summary

SB00129, an Act Establishing an Office of Condominium Ombudsman, aims to establish a dedicated office within the Department of Consumer Protection to address and resolve complaints from unit owners in condominiums and common interest communities. This office will be responsible for investigating issues related to boards of directors, community association managers, and managing agents, while also analyzing and recommending legislative actions concerning condominium laws. It aims to improve communication and transparency between unit owners and associations while protecting consumer rights in these residential communities.

Sentiment

Sentiment around SB00129 appears to be largely supportive, particularly from consumer protection advocates and unit owners who seek enhanced protections against potential abuses by condominium associations. However, there are concerns from certain condominium boards about the potential for increased oversight and regulation, which may be perceived as burdensome. The bill promotes transparency and fairness in condominium governance but introduces additional steps and regulations that could be seen as onerous by some stakeholders.

Contention

Despite the overall positive sentiment, there are notable points of contention regarding the administrative structure and the potential for claim misuse. Critics express that the $35 fee required to file a complaint could burden unit owners and potentially discourage legitimate grievances. Additionally, there are concerns about the disputes that could arise from the mediation process, with fears that not all unit owners may feel adequately represented or that board members may resist oversight. Moreover, the penalties for non-compliance with provisions of this act may raise apprehensions among community associations.