Current Page

[TrulEConcerned]

Hello, at a recent AGM, two owners (of whom I am one) complained about the absence of details in financial statements offered in the agenda by the managing agent.

The two of us were assured that if we want more details eg a listing of payments made by the strata and lot owners’ levy ledgers, all we need do is ask and the agent shall email it to us immediately, “as it’s easily available, captured by the software used”.

The two of us accepted that.

However it is now 2 days since the Chairman confirmed my emailed request for specific details to be sent to me. He stated that he and the agent need to discuss my email with the rest of the SC. No time frame was mentioned.

My questions are:

1. What exactly is there for the SC and agent to discuss? Can the SC deny my request? If so, on what grounds?

2. Can the SC trot out the same lame excuse they trotted out in the past, being: “that sharing lot owners’ individual ledgers with all owners is a breach of lot owners’ privacy”. Note, back in the day NSW Fair Trading told me that is a load of baloney (not to mention a breach of the NSW SSMA) and when I told the EC (as it was) that if the details are not sent to me pronto I will take the matter to NCAT where they can explain to the Member exactly on what grounds the Treasurer and Chairman are denying me the information, they sent me the details post haste.

Please advise what sections of the Act I need to quote in my application to NCAT, if the super secretive SC remains unwilling to share financial information with those not sitting on the SC.

Thank you.

 

Topic

[TrulEConcerned]

I’m back. Thank y’all for your patience.

After asking for access to ALL of the strata’s records, last week I received access to an online portal. A vault that is said to contain all I am after. After discovering the vault would not allow me to view or download more than one invoice, I complained to the agent and several days later I was told the problem I pointed to was fixed.

I take the agent at his word.

Here is my problem: if I were to access ALL the strata’s records in the agent’s office, I would surely be able to choose to sift through say, just invoices or just minutes or just emails etc if I chose to. But the way this portal  is organised it is a mere storage locker for scanned documents, allegedly in date order (I have not verified that) but even so, it does not allow me to say, review say just all the emails in a timely manner. There are no folders etc.

I feel like Jim Hacker on Yes Minister asking his permanent secretary for certain documents. In reply Mr Hacker receives cartons of papers that are not organised, collated or sorted in any meaningful manner, requiring abundant energy and hours to unearth what he is after. (The bureaucrats know they cannot withhold documents from him, so they bury the ones he is after so deep it is hard to unearth).

My question: Can I insist on physical access to the original documents, such as the minute book; payments (or invoice) books etc? I ask because over the last two days I have sighted 60 or so invoices with another 500 to go. And that is before I study them and thereafter turn my attention to other documents I am after.

Any thoughts? Much appreciated.

[Jimmy-T]

Clearly this is a new system and it has teething trouble.  Without know the system, it’s hard to know what options are open to you.  But I would have thought a filtered search would have been standard – e.g search for invoices, documents, excel spreadsheets.

Rather than hassle the strata managers, who may not know any more than you about how to finesse the system, see if the software provider has a help section on their website.  There you might find what you are looking for if others have had the same problems.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[TrulEConcerned]

Hi Jimmy,

Sorry about my delayed response but I had some family matters to attend to.

Thanks for the advice. I will look into it.

One more thing. When I asked the SC and agent for details of monies paid to date and still owed on large projects (which required special levies to be struck), I was told by the agent: “this goes beyond standard reporting and a charge will be levied on your lot for the work gathering this information”. Having to pay for such data would encourage most owners from not following up such a request. It seems to me that either the SC/agent are willfully concealing data or more likely, their record keeping is at best incompetent. We are talking tens of thousands of dollars, which is a big deal for a small strata.

My questions are:

A) Can an owner be charged to acquaint himself with the true finances of the strata? The financial statements given to owners at the AGM are so poor they would embarrass a first semester accounting student. When I was Treasurer at a different, much larger strata, I offered chapter and verse gratis when such requests were made. I refused to shunt owners to the managing agent. But then, I had nothing to hide; and

B) Given the 2 person SC never meets officially (ie no agendas are sent and no minutes are prepared), should I ask for a General Meeting and list my questions for the above as motions? I would also list a demand that the Sec refund $900 he received from the OC (on the mere ‘OK’ of the Chair) when he presented a one page “invoice” for articles he claims to have purchased to effect maintenance at the strata. Note, not a single original invoice was attached to his  one page dozen line “invoice”. There are no before and after photos. There is no evidence that the works claimed to have been done, needed to be done or were done (no independent verification was offered). Also I understand that ANY pmt to a SC member must go to the OC and be paid only after approval by the OC. (Notwithstanding the Sec’s unsubstantiated claim that the items claimed at ‘at cost’). Not only was this pmt hidden from the OC, but the elderly Chair who ok’d the pmt took as Gospel the Sec’s alleged 60 visits to the strata for repairs, for which he billed the OC the bridge toll, when there is not one SPECIFIC incidence report about why he visited on OC’s dime and what he did at that visit, let alone 60 reports.

[kaindub]

Strata managers have as part of their agreement the right to charge fees for doing certain things. Have a look at the agency agreement. However the fees are charged to the OC and not to the individual owner.

If the SM is being diff I cult, just stump up $34 or so and do your own strata search. You then have unfettered access to all documents and its harder for them to hide stuff they don’t want you to see.

Its hard to gauge whether there is anything wrong with the payment to the committee member. I make it a point that if I do any work for the OC like maintenance , I provide a quote and a statement of work and get prior authorisation from the committee.

However sine there appears to be no committee meetings as evidenced by the lack of agenda and minutes, you could argue that there was no appropriate and hence  the payments should not have been made.

Why aren’t you on the committee and ove r seeing this?

 

[TrulEConcerned]

Hey Kaindub,

Happy Easter and thx for the reply.

You wrote, copied below (in regular font) and my replies (in italics):

Strata managers have as part of their agreement the right to charge fees for doing certain things. Have a look at the agency agreement. However the fees are charged to the OC and not to the individual owner. Interesting. But the agent’s email inferred the owner requesting the information will be billed for any work allegedly performed by the agent in addressing my questions.

If the SM is being diff I cult, just stump up $34 or so and do your own strata search. You then have unfettered access to all documents and its harder for them to hide stuff they don’t want you to see. I asked for access to all the records (ie inspection at the agent’s office) this, but it was denied. Instead I was given access to a problematic portal that is said to contain ALL the documents I am after, but in my limited search of that portal I already found it is a poor alternative to actual physical inspection of documents.

Its hard to gauge whether there is anything wrong with the payment to the committee member. I make it a point that if I do any work for the OC like maintenance , I provide a quote and a statement of work and get prior authorisation from the committee. Why it is hard to gauge the facts, you ask: for starters, the Sec claims in an “invoice” he gave his SC colleague but not the OC that he visited the strata 62 times, but (a) there is no period to cover the invoice; (b) there are no notes as to WHEN he visited; (c) there are no notes as to WHY he visited; (d) there are no ACTUAL invoices from retailers for the items he says he purchased to perform work at the strata, just a one page from the Sec listing alleged purchases; (e) there are no before and after photos of the NEED for the work and the PERFORMANCE of the work; (f) unlike you (i) the Sec did not discuss the proposed work with the OC , (ii) the Sec did not rcv prior authorisation to carry out the work from the OC; (iii) the Sec did not provide a quote before the work was done; (iv) only his colleague on the SC (the only other member of the SC, an elderly non confrontational woman) approved his so-called work and (v) neither the Sec nor Chair informed the OC the work was done and pmt was made. I found it by trawling through the records.

However sine there appears to be no committee meetings as evidenced by the lack of agenda and minutes, you could argue that there was no appropriate and hence the payments should not have been made. Spot on! My thought exactly.

Why aren’t you on the committee and ove r seeing this? The strata has 5 lots. For some years every lot was on the SC. Then I questioned the Sec about his lack of transparency, historic and current: Why did he use OC funds to pay for a new stove for a lot owner?  Why did he mix his funds with the OC’s funds? Why does he not seek tenders for works? Why does he not go about performing works for the OC in the proper manner (as you indicated you have done Kaindub).

The Sec is a lawyer and leaned on two owners (senior citizens) in the strata of 5 lots, one with what seems to me to be dementia and the other with less problematic memory issues. With their votes in the hand, he has controlled the SC for over 25 yrs. One senior has been given OC owned storage space for use at zero rent for decades. I see this as a “sweetener” for the senior citizen gifted by the SC.

The Sec infers “how good is it that a lawyer is on the SC” and made clear that he would not join the SC is I was elected on to it.

These two seniors fell for the Sec’s threat to not sit on the committee if I was to join, regardless of how poorly he serves the owners.

Whatever he says, the elderly owners repeat. Regardless of the merits of his views.

For instance: the smoke alarm in my lot, an alarm chosen by the SC/OC, paid for by the OC and installed for the OC’s account, proved to be faulty over a year ago. The Sec demanded that the cost of a technician and associated repairs will be for my account. When I discussed the matter with the Chair and told her that her view, being the Sec’s view is unlawful as she and the Sec chose the alarm (being the SC) on behalf of the OC and installed it for the OC’s account, in addition to its maintenance under the SSMA being clearly assigned to the OC, her reply was “Can’t you work out an agreement with the Sec? Why is this such a problem for you”? I replied “there is nothing to work out. It’s OC responsibility”. She refused to do anything than repeat the Sec’s words. She would not check with NSW FT or any other source.

Only when I told the agent and the SC that the alarm installer confirmed the OC is responsible and NSWFT told me to tell the SC  that not only is the OC is responsible for the alarm but if they wish to repeat their outrageous demands for me to pay then I should seek mediation where the SC can explain to NCAT’s Conciliator and if there is a hearing, then the SC can explain to the Member their views which clearly conflict with the SSMA.

Unsurprisingly, the Sec stopped harassing me with demands to pay. He no doubt doesn’t want to end up at NCAT having to explain himself.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

On 18FEB21 ScotlandX you suggested I ask the SM why he paid the Sec/Tsr without the matter going to the OC for a vote.
I have had other fish to fry the last two months and did not approach the SM as yet.

In Feb the Chair dismissed my oral query claiming she knew nothing about it (“it” being a $900 out to the Sec/Tsr that was made in secret by the SC to the Sec/Tsr without informing, let alone seeking approval of the OC).

Two weeks ago (early May) when I saw her she said that the pmt was approved by the Sec/Tsr himself and she did so in tandem only because he did so.
I told her that the Sec/Tsr cannot approve pmt for himself and the invoice has her signature on it under the words “I approve”. His signature is nowhere to be found on the invoice.

“It is for the OC to approve”, I made clear.

My issue was $400 paid to a strata website for the Sec/Tsr’s benefit alone. More galling when you consider he has little to do with the strata as all functions have been outsourced to the managing agent.

Also I queried another $500 or so he was paid allegedly for goods purchased and travel expenses relating to his alleged 60 trips to the strata. But there is no proof he did any work nor that he traveled even once let alone 6 dozen  times to the strata for OC related matters.

Today the Chair replied:

The amount was for Specialist Strata lawyers to act as central messaging interchanges for NSW Strata Committee members, is very useful & is being widely used by Strata properties. It costs $300 per year which was discounted for us from $400.

This IMHO is her echoing what she was told by the Sec/Tsr.

Even if what she says is true, that is, the site is useful, the OC does not benefit form this one iota.
So can I legitimately ask the agent not only as you suggest:

if he believes it is ok to make payments to the Committee member when the Act requires approval of the payments by the owners in a general meeting

But also

why is the Sec/Tsr spending OC funds for his personal benefit as the fruits of the website have not been shared with anyone on the OC.

Agree?

[Jimmy-T]

I fail to see how the membership of a reputable strata online service (and I know the one you’re referring to) is only of personal benefit to the secretary/treasurer, since it can only be of any use in their dealings with the committee and owners corporation. They don’t need to be sitting repeating chapter and verse everything they have heard  or read on the website for it to be of benefit to the committee and community as a whole.

Regarding payment of expenses (in NSW), there is nothing I can find under strata law to prevent the OC paying legitimate expenses retrospectively, just as there is nothing to prevent them placing restrictions on these expenses.

If the committee member is a valued contributor to the workings of the committee, I can’t see why they should have to be out of pocket to fulfill their role.

On the other hand, the ATO does not permit expenses incurred in attending strata committee meetings as legitimate deductions.  However, some would say that’s a good reason why expenses SHOULD be paid – since theywould be out of pocket otherwise.

The simple solution is to propose a motion to your next general meeting that expenses to committee members no longer be paid, and see how that flies.

By the way, in Queensland, body corporate law allows for a maximum expenses claim of $50 per meeting and $300 per year.

 

 

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[TrulEConcerned]

Jimmy T wrote
I fail to see how the membership of a reputable strata online service (and I know the one you’re referring to) is only of personal benefit to the secretary/treasurer, since it can only be of any use in their dealings with the committee and owners corporation. They don’t need to be sitting repeating chapter and verse everything they have heard  or read on the website for it to be of benefit to the committee and community as a whole.

There is no real committee. The strata has 5 lots. The committee is made of two persons where one is an echo and mostly answers queries with “talk to the Secretary/Treasurer or the Managing Agent”. The other is the Sec/Tsr (who has at least one owner’s – who does not seem alert – proxy in his pocket). Neither SC members are involved in administering the strata: that was outsourced to a managing agent. I can only guess that the benefit the Sec/Tsr derives from the subscription is for his other possible properties where maybe there is no managing agent and perhaps he cannot get a lock on the votes so easily.

Regarding payment of expenses (in NSW), there is nothing I can find under strata law to prevent the OC paying legitimate expenses retrospectively, just as there is nothing to prevent them placing restrictions on these expenses.

I understand that any payment must be approved at a AGM and paid retrospectively. I have no issue with that. NSWFT focused on the word “retrospectively” in my discussions. In the case I mention, payment was made mid 2020 in secret without informing let alone allowing the OC to vote. The Chair approved paying the Sec/Tsr and passed her approval to the managing agent to pay. That is how the 2 person SC worked. The AGM some months afterwards was not informed of the pmt, let alone given the chance to vote. Also if someone invoices the SC for 60 visits to the strata (without starting over what period), asking the OC to pay the bridge toll etc, is it too much to ask for details of why he visited each time and what he did? Is it too much to ask for original invoices for items claimed to have been purchased?

If the committee member is a valued contributor to the workings of the committee, I can’t see why they should have to be out of pocket to fulfill their role.

Nobody should be out of pocket for legitimate provable required expenses. But that does not seem to be the case here.
I don’t value any committee member who seems to be allergic to transparency; had me removed from the SC because I insisted that tradesmen and SC members  (including him) who want to do work for the OC submit their quotes before they are engaged by the SC/OC (and not be hired and paid until the quote is accepted) and an individual who was found to have used OC funds to pay for a neighbour’s kitchen appliance in the past.  As for work claimed to have been performed for the OC: there is no proof. For instance, he claims he purchased paint and other items for work at the premises. But there are no original invoices/receipts; there is no mention of what was the condition of whatever was painted before it was painted and how it looks after the said painting was done. I have no idea what was painted, assuming something was painted as the SC reported nothing about this to the OC.

NSWFT asked me to question the agent about paying this invoice in breach of the Act and to establish how many times the agent has paid this way. I sense NSWFT is finally growing some fangs.

On the other hand, the ATO does not permit expenses incurred in attending strata committee meetings as legitimate deductions.  However, some would say that’s a good reason why expenses SHOULD be paid – since theywould be out of pocket otherwise.

I have no issue with reimbursing folk. If it follows the law.  I have an issue when one SC member asking the other SC member to sign off on his request for reimbursement and the agent paying in breach of the SSMA requirement that such payments need OC approval before being paid. And keeping that pmt a secret from the OC. The AGM that four months later in 2020 followed the payment made no reference to the payment.

The simple solution is to propose a motion to your next general meeting that expenses to committee members no longer be paid, and see how that flies.

I think you miss my point, or I was unclear. I have no issue with reimbursement so long as it is a per the Act; when retrospective approval is given by the OC; not done in secret and not done without evidence of purchases; without reports on 60 trips to the strata indicating what was done and photos before and after of work performed.

By the way, in Queensland, body corporate law allows for a maximum expenses claim of $50 per meeting and $300 per year.

Way to go Anastasia!

[Jimmy-T]

This is clearly an issue between you and the other owner.  If you think the law has been broken, take it to NCAT and have the other owner removed from the committee.  But I think we have read everything you have to say about this, at great length, many times over.  Please let us know when you have taken action and what was the result.

If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.

[Author]

Replies