Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorReplies
-
UPDATE:
- The general meeting called by the strata manager to confirm the disputed AGM minutes and renew their management contract went ahead. However, both their motions were defeated.
- An EGM was called through a qualified request. In this meeting, the OC confirmed the official AGM minutes, and resolved that the later version was unconfirmed and not to be relied upon. The OC also superseded the previous committee approval the AC unit. In addition, the OC removed the conflicted members from the committee and installed a new committee.
- A notice was sent by the new committee to the offender informing them of the OC decision and asking them for supporting documents. The offender refused to provide any documents and insisted that their installation was approved and that they follow the strata manager’s instructions and ignoring the EGM resolutions.
In the first instance, propose and amendment asking that anyone who was not at the meeting, who can therefore not confirm or deny the accuracy of the proposal, recuse themselves from voting.
This is counter productive knowing that the majority is comprised of the conflicted member and his 2 friends (one of them is the fake committee member.
Regarding the manager’s agreement, ask that it be deferred for three months until the veracity of the SM’s amended minutes can be determined.
All requests to the SM are now being ignored., and the GM is going ahead on the agency’s terms.
There have been some worrying updates.
John has requested access to the strata roll for a “Qualified Request”.
However, while he was waiting for access (for ~3 weeks), the Strata Manger called a GM.
The GM main two objectives are:
- to vote that the altered AGM minutes reflect the events of the AGM (which is false) and contradict John’s sworn document that those altered minutes were not consistent with the events of the AGM.
- Renew the manager’s agreement.
What can John do now?
Thank you Jimmy, your input is much appreciated.
And get the complicit committee members and strata manager removed while you’re at it.
Can you please provide more details on this point.
There has been no update, and I haven’t stopped following this thread for any input.
The strata manager is getting worse since other owners could not see or understand the governance issues.
John tried to convene a general meeting but other owners are not interested. Some owners think that the whole issue is the unauthorised AC unit which they see as not a big issue.
It seems also that the strata manager is talking to other owners privately and trying to paint John as difficult, unreasonable and making unecessary noise. However, the fact is that John was the only one who paid attention to the rot and tried to deal with it.
It seems that the only option is fair trading mediation and then NCAT. But John is aware that this would cost all owners as the strata company would use the OC money for their legal costs.
What are your thoughts?
Thank you Jimmy and Tina for your inputs.
First, I’m not frustrated. I am calm, collected, and I know that the strata manager (SM) has made very bad mistakes.
I have just finished my Cert V in Strata Management so I am well aware of strata legislation.
There is one SC member (Mr Jhon Doe) that I’m helping on this case. But my qualifications are no substitute to your valuable experiences. This is why I’m sharing this case here.
John Doe was the first to raise the breach with the SM. The SM promised to send a formal letter to the offender. But soon after asked John to sign a premature contract extension. John ignored that email since it’s irrelevant to the thread and they still have about a year in the current contract.
It appears soon later, the SM found out that the offender was a Strata Committee member. So he claimed that he needed to seek a solicitor advice to deal with the breach (note this is a textbook breach under S111 of the SSMA 2015).
A week later, the SM emailed John saying that offender is a committee member (a known fact as the scheme is very small) and said again that he would send the “letter”.
The SM appears to lean towards the offender. So he chose the easiest way to deal with the breach under s110 as a “minor renovation”.
However, he had a problem. The predicted vote was a tie and approval would fail. So the SM needed numbers in the committee, so he created another version of the AGM minutes and added a friend/sympathising owner with the offender to the committee to get the majority that he needs.
Although, this was enough, the SM even claimed that the offender had the right to vote on his own AC unit installation.
Lately, the SM circulated a meeting notice asking the committee to vote. While the email only mentioned the retrospective approval of the AC, the notice included another motion “to accept minutes of a meeting”.
Most people would print the ballot page, tick numbered boxes without noticing the extra “motion”. In addition, there was no attached minutes to consider, and there was no known prior meeting.
Moreover, the notice was riddled with defects, including wrong offending lot number, description of the works as “minor to the kitchen” and no mention of external installation on a common property wall/façade although the attached photo to the notice showed otherwise.
Mr John, put the SM on notice about the errors in the meeting notice and asked him not to publish any minutes related to the defective notice.
However, the SM published the minutes, and they were shocking:
- The offender voted on their own AC approval
- The newly added member voted although the new AGM minutes are still disputed.
There is still no clarification on what that extra motion was for.
There are many issues in this case. What do you think, flatchatters.
Thank you very much in advance for your valuable advice.
Earlier in this thread, there was mention of Cumberland Council. Have you spoken to someone there about this?
No. But the installation is on the primary building façade, it is not screened, and is seen from the street. It is even seen from the main street (>150 meters away).
Committees can’t pass special resolutions.
That is what the strata legislation says, but our strata manager is acting above the law.
But I think if no one is prepared to take this to mediation at Fair Trading, you may as well lie back and take it (and whatever breaches come next).
The SC has the offender, his friend and the SM have created a new set of AGM minutes (without authorisation) and added another friend of the offender. So these member only care about the AC unit to stay and they don’t understand the law. The SM only care about his agreement renewal which these three will sign for him.
There is only one SC member who is aware of the legal framework and keep raising the legal issues. In doing so, he became the no 1 enemy of the other 2 members, the fake member and the strata manager.
But he is planning to go all the way to NCAT and Fair Trading, but he’s worried about the cost to hire a lawyer for NCAT which will have to take himself as an owner.
Please look up Section 108 and Section 111 of the Act.
Thanks, Tina!
I agree with you and I am aware of the legislation.Unfortunately, our strata manager is a rogue who has no regards to the strata law. They said approval was under s110; and I’m aware that s110 doesn’t apply for an installation on the common exterior walls.
They have already did a defective committee meeting to approve the installation by ballot; but they haven’t published the minutes after several days.
The main problem we’re facing now is with the SM and Strata Managing company. To secure support from the offender for renewing their management contract, the SM created an amended set of AGM minutes (created recently) that falsely added an owner, who is also a friend of the offender, as a committee member, even though only three members were elected at the AGM. The day before the altered minutes were created, the SM had already implied, incorrectly, in an email that this owner was on the committee, and it appears the amended minutes were then used to justify that claim. This was done to manipulate voting numbers and create an artificial “majority” in favour of the offender’s unauthorised AC installation.
The SM also claims that committee members required that they be contacted individually and that their votes remain anonymous. This appears to be another cover to manipulate votes. However, this not consistent with Clauses 18(1), 15(1), and 16 of the SSMA 2015.
UPDATE:
- The SM generated and circulated a recent new version of the AGM minutes which listed 4 SC members instead of 3 SC in the original minutes.
- The SM claimed that all members have requested to be contacted individually (I’m a member and I’ve never made request)
- The SM claimed that all members requested anonymous voting.
- The SM claimed that they have a majority to approve the retrospective approval (based on the recently generated AGM minutes.)
- The SM misrepresented legislation and said the offender can vote.
- The SM misrepresented Bylaw closes
I am shocked!
There is only one committee member who cares, and they are doing their best to deal with the breach. They don’t want to have an extra issue with a neighbour. By acting on their breach, they believe that would be enough to send a message to the offending member. Also, most owners who live in the block are passive and don’t want to be involved and prefer to gossip in private about issues rather than dealing with them.
I agree. So is the problem that the committee members are dragging their feet? If so, I reckon a mediation application will get them moving. The committee tells the strata manager what to do, not the other way round, so the committee should issue a notice to comply now and get it over with.
Unfortunately, it is the SM who is dragging their feet. Our strata company has a very bad reputation in NSW, they were even on TV few years ago for some bad practices, and it seems that they are reluctant to deal with this breach. In addition, only one SC member is alert and aware of the Strata legal framework, and he is following up this issue with the SM.
Thank you, Jimmy, for the detailed reply.
Strata committee members must act honestly, fairly, and in compliance with the SSMA 2015 and the scheme’s by-laws. While the offending committee member has clearly failed to meet those obligations, there is no intention to remove him from the committee.
All owners follow the by-laws and seek approval or guidance from the strata manager when required. This new owner joined the committee and acted as though membership allowed him to bypass the rules. When questioned, he provided a minimal explanation and attempted to shift responsibility to a former SM. Given he previously lived in another strata scheme, it’s difficult to accept that he was unaware written approval was required.
Allowing this AC unit to remain would send the wrong message to other owners. It would raise questions about the committee’s integrity and fairness, and suggest that joining the committee gives someone a free pass to ignore strata law and the by-laws.
I understand that reverse-cycle air-conditioning can fall under sustainability items, but in this case the issue isn’t the type of AC unit – it’s the location. The unit was installed on the primary building façade and is clearly visible from the street, which has a significant impact on the external appearance of the building.
The sustainability rule does not protect a bad location or an unauthorised installation. Even with sustainability provisions, installations still need to be in a reasonable and appropriate position. A primary façade installation generally isn’t considered acceptable, so I think that the sustainability rule wouldn’t change how this one is dealt with.
The SC is not responsible for educating an owner. If the strata manager has advised the offender to submit a retrospective approval application and he decides that his letter is sufficient, then the committee should proceed to vote, refuse the request, and instruct the strata manager to issue a Notice to Comply. If he still refuses to comply, the matter would move to mediation and then NCAT. This would be the fastest path, and it is difficult to see how NCAT would support his position.
The AC unit is on a street-visible façade, clearly impacts the aesthetics of the building and sets a bad precedent. Also the offender is a committee member who are required to upheld the by-law, not breach it.
So how offering a CP-by-law option (slow) is a reasonable option? And is there any statutory obligation for the OC to invite a by-law application?
-
AuthorReplies