[Columbo]

An update…

Tradespeople came by and fixed several of the smaller issues raised.

However, this leaves some larger matters unresolved.

Squeaking floorboards, a step down from the patio that is clearly non-compliant, and waterproofing membranes that have not been capped, which means that water can in fact get into the concrete/brickwork they are supposed to protect.

The developer says he will get the floorboards seen to. I first raised this with him over a year ago…. I’ve been polite and patient too long!

The step down he says is compliant, but so far has refused to show me what part of the National Construction Code might give him an excuse. I have provided the details of the part I believe applies…

The developer denies there’s any problem with the membrane…

My question now is that the membrane issue really applies to common property. Should I just inform the Strata Committee of the problem and put it in their lap? I don’t know how motivated they are to do anything that might cause them to actually have to confront the developer… The step down from the patio… Is that common property or is it part of the unit. I was told recently that the balconies and patios are common property, but I’ve also been told that our garden is part of our unit…?? As to the squeaky floorboards, I feel there’s a high likelihood that this will need to go to Fair Trading to get any action. What is the best way to move this forward? Suggestions? And what costs am I likely to have to wear?

[Columbo]

If you”re going to spend real money, I would’ve thought you would spend it better on a PR campaign in social media and raise the profile of the bad actors….

[Columbo]

Thanks for the comments so far.

Yesterday, had a visit from the developer with one of his builders who it seems he is going to get to address some of the matters raised.

I have not received anything in writing from the developer as yet though, to say what he plans to fix… and what he tries to ignore…

[Columbo]

Thanks for this. I would be interested in hearing what other people have experienced.

I bumped into a couple of people from the Strata Committee yesterday and told them I had retained a building inspector and now had the report. As there were several matters that related to comm0n property, I shared those with them. I think they too are quite concerned. Although I am concerned that there is too much optimism bias at play. These disturbing issues are not being relayed to individual owners appropriately.

Do you see retaining a lawyer as a last resort or first? And what about Fair Trading and/NCAT?

I have a great respect for the value of getting lawyers involved. I also know how much money they cost. The bottom line being, I don’t want to be the schmuck who picks up the tab for a suit letting everyone else a free ride!

 

[Columbo]

I think one of the more egregious problems with professional strata management is the lack of professionalism. If you  go to hospital to have an operation you would hope that an experienced surgeon does the work, and not a 1st year medical student. I think one of the first things that any self investigation should cover is what level of qualifications employees of big management companies have.

For instance, what is the point of a manager claiming in an email that he doesn’t receive any hidden commissions? It’s not that guy who I care about. It’s whether the company that employs him is conflicted.

The fact that the aforementioned manager still has not provided a proper updated strata roll to our secretary is abominable. That he clearly hasn’t read what strata law states is unforgivable. I had to walk our secretary through the NSW gov web page pertaining to strata rolls to show him that he needed to believe his own eyes and not what he was being told by this guy…

An investigation is nice. But frankly, all they need to do is to tell all their members that in a world where anyone can easily access information, it might be a good idea for Strata Management Companies to read what the NSW Gov website says about basic things such as access to strata rolls. It would be a start!

[Columbo]

Thanks to TrulE and Jimmy for responses.

I have had a devil of a job just getting the Secretary to understand that the underlying issue he needs to deal with is that the tabling of the strata roll needs to happen at each meeting, and if he doesn’t get it from the Strata Manager it is his problem… or is it, as the SM operates with a delegated authority.

As it happens, after me pushing the Secretary to make sure he got a copy of the current strata roll from the SM prior to our next meeting (tomorrow), he did receive it. However, it remains to be seen whether that includes information on residential lets and any other relevant info.

I have also had to really wind him up about declarations of conflict at the beginning of the meeting.

I understand the issue noted about contingencies in the event of the Secretary being unfinancial at a meeting. Surely there must be a solution for this other than having a blanket delegated authority? That seems like a recipe for getting people to negotiate with themselves.

 

[Columbo]

My thinking is as follows:

I write a letter to the SC asking the Secretary to clarify whether he has assumed all the responsibilities associated with the role, or whether the manager still has legal responsibilities as a result of the delegated authority in the management agreement.

That puts him in the position of needing the strata manager to clarify.

Next step is to ask why there is delinquency with regard to secretarial roles that are clearly stated on the NSW gov website and which are not delivered on (if any). The next meeting is this coming week and I have alerted the secretary that I believe there is a need to table changes to the roll that have taken place.

That would hopefully lead to the strata manager needing to declare whether they see themselves having a responsibility under the delegated authority or not. If they do and there is a breach, then I start the FT process?

What do you think?

 

[Columbo]

Thanks for that….

So to be precise – if there is a discussion about STRA at a committee meeting anyone who is operating a STRA rental should exit the meeting entirely during that discussion, and should declare their conflict at the beginning of such a discussion.

And…

Given that at this point in time a delegated authority has been granted, per the agreement and not rescinded in writing does the Manager have to ensure that the authority granted as Secretary is performed to the letter of the law? I just don’t want to see the committee member secretary having to wear the responsibility (including fines) that I believe the strata manager company should be responsible for.

[Columbo]

How much proof does one need?

I am on a committee that does not seem to understand that to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. What are the most likely ways to get complaints going using the Property and Stock Agents legislation? And can people other than the committee initiate these things – and be noticed?

[Columbo]

I would like to understand this…

According to the ACCC website:

• When businesses communicate and cooperate, they risk damaging competition and breaking the law.
• Businesses that want to join together to negotiate with a supplier or customer through collective bargaining first need permission. This is known as an exemption.
• It’s not illegal to have market power. However, businesses must not misuse this power to stop other businesses competing on their merits.
• When the misuse of market power substantially lessens competition, it is illegal.
• A business risks breaching competition law when it engages in exclusive dealing by restricting how its customers or suppliers do business.

In the case of Netstrata and the building I live in, which you are familiar with, Jimmy,  it seems that there is certainly communication and cooperation between them and the developer, and possibly with the supplier of the Embedded Energy system. The question is whether that leads to a misuse of market power.

However, when I think back to the FAGM and the way that the motions were put to the owners, most of us being newbies to strata, my recollection is that there was no critical comment from the newly appointed strata managers as to the alternatives, if any. If that had been a presentation to potential uninformed investors into a public company, there would have had to be a risk disclosure to ensure that investors were suitably educated, I believe.

The question that follows this is, given that embedded network agreements provide benefits to developers while committing the downstream owners to paying for the equipment that is provided to the developer in order for the building to meet BASIX requirements and/or to be certified, shouldn’t the strata manager – Netstrata – inform the unit owners of this.

After all, minutes before at the FAGM, the owners voted to appoint Netstrata as the strata manager, and in doing so, Netstrata took on the role of a fiduciary with the relevant duty of care.

Interested to hear some views on this. It seems to me that it is the FAGM that is the nexus point for behaviours that put owners at a disadvantage. What do other strata management companies do in these circumstances? What is best practice?

[Columbo]

I am hopeful that there will be a root and branch overhaul of the regulations. But at the end of the day the biggest problem is the (few) property managers who ride roughshod over by-laws, regulations, code of conduct and grab whatever money they can on the way through – with no regard to the community, nor to the owners of the properties they manage…

I believe that the only way that gets fixed is when someone is put on the exclusion list and the tiger is perceived as having teeth.

[Columbo]

It is a pity that they don’t show any data for small towns. Looks like it is all large metro places

[Author]

Replies