- This topic has 3 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hey FlatChatters, buckle up. I’m back with another chapter in the saga of “Strata Manager vs. Common Sense,” and this one has a spicy new twist.
So, we have an EGM coming up. I spotted some serious issues with one of the motions – the kind of stuff that could get any decision overturned at NCAT. You know, basic things like:
· The Motion Mash-Up: They’ve crammed the decision to have an ‘end of major defects warranty’ building inspection with the decision on which company to use all into one motion. It’s like asking “Should we get pizza and should it be from Dominos?” in a single breath. They need to be separate votes!
· The Wonky Voting Paper: The voting paper only has “YES” boxes next to each quote. No “NO” option. It’s generated by their software, apparently, and we’re just supposed to accept it. Because nothing says “democracy” like being unable to formally vote against something!
· The Missing Info: They haven’t provided the scopes of work for the quotes. So owners are being asked to choose between a $1,500 inspection and a $4,750 one with zero idea of what they’re actually getting for their money. Super informed decision-making, right?I sent a very detailed, polite email to our strata manager explaining all this, suggesting a simple fix by splitting the motion and re-issuing the papers. Or sending a clarification to all strata members.
Cue the infuriating response. Here’s the gist of their reply:
1. On the motion: “If owners don’t want the inspection, they just vote NO to all quotes.” (So, no acknowledgement of the procedural flaw at all).
2. On the voting paper: “The software made me do it. Talk to the software provider if you have a problem.” (I am not joking).
3. On the missing scopes: “We’ve never provided them before.” (A classic defence, I’m sure you’ll agree).
4. On fixing anything: “The law says we can’t change the agenda once it’s issued.” (This feels like a… creative… interpretation to avoid work).But wait, there’s more! The real kicker is the new habit this manager has developed. At the end of his emails, he now includes this little gem:
“Please be advised that all correspondence is being recorded on the property file, which may have a negative impact if you wish to sell your property in the future.”
Let me get this straight. My emails – which are objective, cite the legislation, and are solely about ensuring our meetings are run fairly and legally – are being framed as some kind of black mark against me?
It feels less like a professional response and more like a playground tactic to try and scare me into being quiet. I’m not causing trouble; I’m trying to prevent future trouble for the whole scheme!
So, my fellow strata warriors:
· Am I crazy, or is this motion setup as flawed as I think it is?
· Has anyone else had a manager hide behind “the software made me do it” or “we’ve never done it that way before”?
· And most importantly, has anyone ever been threatened with the “this will go on your permanent record” line? How did you handle it? It feels incredibly unprofessional and borderline intimidatory.Any advice or shared misery would be a great comfort. My eye-twitch is developing its own eye-twitch.
Cheers,
The “Apparently Future-Unsellable” Stickler for Rules
-
Replies
-
I’m in a similar predicament.
Upcoming AGM with a dodgy motion.
Preliminary email to SM returned the reply that the motion was in order, which didn’t actually answer the objection I made.
Next will be a more detailed email with reasons why the motion is defective. Which I am sure will get the same reply.
This is an experienced SM who is just trying to gaslight me and others.
Like you my arguments will be well supported by reference to the act.
if the motion is not withdrawn at the agm I intend to get mediation and then go to NCAT.
Unfortunately the problem with the behaviour of the Strata Manager is that it is not as simple as getting a pizza from Dominos.
· The Motion Mash-Up: They’ve crammed the decision to have an ‘end of major defects warranty’ building inspection with the decision on which company to use all into one motion. It’s like asking “Should we get pizza and should it be from Dominos?” in a single breath. They need to be separate votes!
Agreed. If they change a motion after the agenda has been sent, they need to re-send the agenda to all owners. You cannot add a new motion to a meeting without all owners seeing it beforehand.
· The Wonky Voting Paper: The voting paper only has “YES” boxes next to each quote. No “NO” option. It’s generated by their software, apparently, and we’re just supposed to accept it. Because nothing says “democracy” like being unable to formally vote against something!
Draw a box and write the word “NO” next to it. Draw a tick inside the box.
· The Missing Info: They haven’t provided the scopes of work for the quotes. So owners are being asked to choose between a $1,500 inspection and a $4,750 one with zero idea of what they’re actually getting for their money. Super informed decision-making, right?
You could call the providers yourself and find out what the works entail. It should not be your job to do it.
But wait, there’s more! The real kicker is the new habit this manager has developed. At the end of his emails, he now includes this little gem:
“Please be advised that all correspondence is being recorded on the property file, which may have a negative impact if you wish to sell your property in the future.”
If a prospective buyer sees an engaged owner and an intransigent strata manager, they might run away. They are threatening you by saying you are revealing their incompetence.