[HappyNow]

Thank you.  I have been fighting this dysfunctional EC committee and Owners Corporation (thanks to favourites and proxies to the Chairman) for 3 years now.  I have paid the $78 for Fair Trading mediation AND I have paid the $78 for CTTT hearing as I approached CTTT first and they said I had to go the mediation path first, even though I had travelled this way before on another matter.  So I continue to keep my head high and have asked the CTTT to

a) request a reversal the miscellaneous invoice against my unit for gate enhancement

b) explain to the OC, EC and Strata Managers that this IS an insurance claim and is on the building report initially obtained and paid for by owners 3 years ago when a special levy was raised and with the result that my Unit was noted as having water penetration on the common property wall

c) request that the dysfunctional EC AND Strata Manager be dismissed and a replacement Strata Manager installed

Amazing that the 3 other units involved here just do not have the energy to fight for their rights.

 

 

[HappyNow]

What is the nature of the dispute?

Answer: 

a) Misc invoice applied to my account – said it was due to removalist truck damage. Invoice is for an ‘enhancement to the gate’ of a stopgate.  Removalist truck did point out fence was broken on the day BUT it wasn’t broken by them. Was already broken with a brick holding it closed (we have pic). EC are refusing to discuss and have now moved it to bad debt unrecoverable. Means I cannot vote in AGM etc.  Written requests for explanation ignored.

b) Common wall between 4 units has water penetration. Complex only 4 years old. Other units with water penetration claimed via Builders Insurance.  The 4 units I am attached to are being repaired under ‘sinking fund’ claim. Same water penetration but levies are paying for repairs. Why? No explanation from OC or Strata Manager. 3 quotes obtained ranging from $16K, $3K, $404. Initially chose $404 option until we requested copy of liability insurance.  OC have now chosen $3K option. No explanation as to why and no explanation as to why not an insurance claim for common property water penetration.

3) Dysfunctional EC and Strata Manager. No education is being undertaken to the EC representing the OC. Favouritism, unprofessional decisions, as over 55’s complex, no one wants to ‘pay’ to keep new building in good area with responsible sinking fund. Treasurer stated at AGM in April no outlay would be made from sinking fund for next 3 years.  Obviously incorrect statement.

[HappyNow]

Thank you. I accept they did not trespass as the tenant let them in.

I do not understand why this would be a sinking fund cost.  The other units in the complex (with water penetration) have had their unit fixed via the builders insurance cover.  The block of 4 units my apartment sits in are being treated differently.  They have obtained 4 x quotes ranging in price at $16K, $3K and $404 to repair water penetration in a common wall that runs down the middle of the 4 units.  The EC (and thereby the OC) have chosen the $3k solution but the cost is coming out of the sinking fund and not going through an insurance claim.  We have only been given 3 days notice to allow tradesman to go through the unit to the rear common property wall.  I have requested mediation from Dept Fair Trading to take place 2nd Sept. The EC (and OC) have recommended from a meeting that no one attend the mediation – neither the EC, owners or any representative.  I do not understand why they would recommend that when the water penetration is exactly the same as that experienced by the other units.  Am I going mad or is this a mad mad mad mad world we live in?  If they do not attend mediation, I will submit the issue to CTTT.  a) It should be an Insurance Claim.  b) How do we know the solution being offered for $3K will actually work?  There is a big differentiation between the 3 quotes obtained.  If I dont allow access to the common property through the unit what other recourse can they take?  Why can’t we wait for their ‘solution’ until after the mediation date has passed?  It is all very up in the air and just does not seem right to me.  Other owners are paying out of their levies for our 4 units to be repaired.  Thats just not right. 

Hi Slap Shot,

On what basis are you requesting the owners corporation to lodge an insurance claim? The Owners Corporations insurer are unlikely to get involved unless there has been any damage caused to common property. They will then only pay for the repair of damaged common property once they are certain that the cause has been rectified (evidenced by a tradesman’s invoice etc.).

The core of the issue you need to get to the bottom of is what is causing the excess moisture which may be caused by a raft of problems (not all of which will be the owners corporations responsibility to repair).

It is not uncommon for executive committees to want to inspect an issue prior to authorising the strata manager to engage a contractor in order to keep a check on expenditure incurred by the SM on their behalf  (as can be witnessed by many concerned posts on this forum).

Now, if the EC members who made a visual inspection could not see a visible problem, I would recommend arranging for your own inspection of your unit. Once you have a professional opinion on whether there is: 1) a problem existing, and 2)what is the cause and solution to this problem; you will be in a very strong position to demand the owners corporation to rectify (if appropriate).

If the repairs and/or damage turn out to be claimable under the owners corporation’s insurance policy, then the strata manager should lodge a claim on behalf of the owners.

Please be aware that the most common cause of damp problems in apartments are the result of poor ventilation – especially in older buildings.

– See more at: http://www.flatchat.com.au/forum/executive-committees/is-this-tresspass-by-the-executive-committee/#sthash.nXDgNsBe.dpuf

[HappyNow]

Well done.  Pays to be diligent and determined

[HappyNow]

Thank you.  Have written to the Strata Manager to advise this is not acceptable and a qualified tradesman has to enter the site to inspect.  Have applied for mediation to Dept of Fair Trading regarding the insurance matter.  Will apply to CTTT once mediation has taken place if outcome is not satisfactory.

[HappyNow]

Can I throw in a question here please.  We have an apartment above us and the owner has laid timber flooring.  They did get permission of the EC.  She is very quiet and we are not experiencing any problems.  What happens if she sells the property and with the next owner we suffer a lot of noise in our apartment from above.  Who is responsible?  The owner who laid the timber is now gone – is the new owner now responsible for the replacement of the timber should it be necessary?

[HappyNow]

Thanks everyone.  I have sent a letter asking for further justification that this is indeed a valid invoice on an owner.  I have refuted the interest charges and stated I want any levies paid to go against a levy invoice and not the miscellaneous invoice.  I have requested this matter be resolved no later than 30th June or I will go to CTTT for adjudication.  I have included an insurance issue (water damage to internal walls and one common property wall externally) whereby my agent has requested a work order be raised for an insurance assessor to assess the damage and report if it is a building insurance claim or a personal claim.  Of course the external common property wall WILL be a building insurance and/or Owners Corporation insurance claim.  The internal wall which runs along the boundary of the external part of the property with which the soil level is behind the wall should also be a builders and/or owners corporation insurance claim.  Inept Executive Committee members should NOT be on the committee if they do not wish to be there having to contend with problems of a complex.  They should stand down and let those who do want to be on be elected to stand.  One day I will get there and justice and fairness for all will prevail.

[HappyNow]

Thanks Strata Manager and Whale.  I did put my argument in writing and they said they would not discuss it further and the invoice will remain on my account accruing interest until paid and my voting rights denied.  Strata Law seems very unfair if an EC can direct a Strata Manager to raise a Miscellaneous invoice on someone and then not discuss it.  The lack of maintenance by this corrupt EC led to the gate remaining un-repaired in the first place.  The over 65 year old men who ‘try’ to attend to the maintenance of the property have failed dismally.  In their attempts to save money, the property has suffered at their hands.  They do not want levies increased and they do not want the sinking fund levies increased either as ‘it will be someone elses problem in the future’.  This gate had a brick pillar holding it closed prior to our removalist truck entering the property.  We have a photo showing the pillar propping the gate closed. The drive is overgrown and all owners recently received a note that no gardening was to be undertaken unless agreed by the EC.  I can pay the miscellaneous invoice and negative gear it and it will go away however is it right that they can charge me for something I am not responsible for?  The invoice from the repair company does not indicate any damage by a truck or van as I indicated in my initial submission.  The Strata Manager invoice to me says Unit 19 damage by removalist van.  I know they dont like me because I keep pushing for justice and fairness.  I think i need to fight this injustice.

[HappyNow]

You must have read some of my submissions Tracer.  Yes, we have corrupt Executive Committee members being re-elected into office year after year from proxies received from owners who have ‘favours’ done for them in return of them giving such proxies.  Very annoying and what can you do except wait until the other owners realise they are being duped. Incompetence reigns supreme.

 

Gradually the other owners in the complex are starting to wake up to their antics and the fact that if they actually want anything done properly, they will have to elect a different set of committee members to ensure their asset value is retained. The current members have been in place for 3 years now.

 

We are in a SEPP5 complex of 21 where the builder went into liquidation.  The insurance claim has been handled unprofessionally and the monies received for repairs does not cover all the repairs needed.  I expect special levies will need to be raised to pay for the waterproofing and re-painting of the complex.  At the moment it looks terrible from all the peeling paint.  The complex is only 4 years old but looks 20 years old.  The obvious incompetence will see the end of this group of 4. Bear in mind the Chairman does not have a vote however he rules the roost but in effect only 3 have a vote out of 21 units that they represent as the ‘Owners Corporation’. 

Chairman and Secretary (husband & wife)

Garden Convenor (friend of above)

Committee Member (friend of all above)

 

I have now moved out and rented my unit.  I will not return until the above are too old to be in office any longer, too sick or dead.  Frankly I dont care which comes first.  In the meantime, I will negative gear the unit and any special levies raised and live a happier life away from the stupidity.  I will attend all AGM and EGM meetings however just to rub salt into the wounds as they appear.  My revenge will be the reward of having them realise that the value of their own asset is being decreased due to their lack of maintenance and repair.  Eventually they will want to sell – perhaps to move into a retirement village or something similar – and will want top dollar.  I hope by then they will realise it would be better for us to put a DA to the council to make the complex a normal Strata plan thereby instantly adding $100K to the value of each unit.  Also by then other owners will have paid their special levies to get the place spruced up and looking good which will have come out of their pockets and not mine as mine will be subsidised by negative gearing (thank you Government).  Revenge will be sweet

[HappyNow]

Yes your right Whale…actively interested and personally involved being the person ‘slapped’ by the EC member in the first place.  Then slapped a 2nd time when she demonstrated to the Chairman how she had slapped me the first time!  You bet I have a personal interest.  To find out she then fraudulently used OC liability insurance to pay her legal costs….well, you can imagine how I feel and why I won’t let it go.  Wrong has been done and its not acceptable.  The EC hold a seat of responsibility and they have to be held accountable.  I will heed your advice re S156 and will keep it in mind as the way the EC are going, we will end up in front of CTTT at some stage.  I just wonder how many other EC are using the Office Bearers Insurance loophole to cover their wrong doings.  Before long we will be paying the EC speeding fines  all thanks to the fact there is nothing can be done about it by the FOC – the body set up to ensure right is done and disputes legally decided. It would be nice if everyone were honest.  Thanks for all the advice though.  It won’t go astray. 

[HappyNow]

Hi Whale,

thanks for the response. The reason this was escalated to the FOS is that the O/C in the person of the Executive Committee, has consistently refused to explain the circumstances of the claim. No documents have been filed in the correspondence file, other than a note from the Strata Manager stating that the office bearer in question instructed that all correspondence be redirected to her personally,so that nothing would appear in O/C correspondence.

I assume that the EC or the chairman authorised the agent to proceed with the claim, but there is nothing in correspondence or EC meeting minutes referring to such authorisation.

At the last EGM, the proposal was put forward by the EC that the matter is now closed, and that motion passed (the chairman holds an impressive portfolio of proxies).

So I had no option but to pursue the matter with FOS in the hope of getting someone to tell the truth.

I have no doubt that there was considerable correspondence between the O/C and the insurer, but none of this ever made it to the correspondence file.

The claim was settled and the office bearer’s legal costs were reimbursed. The insurer has since quoted cover at a rate that makes it obvious they no longer wish to take the business.

I don’t know where this leaves the current strata manager regarding completeness of records. I guess he can simply say ‘well, this is all I got from the original agent, take it up with them’

For my part, we have an office bearer who used violence against an owner and an EC who, on the one hand, refused to discuss it as it was a ‘private’ matter, while on the other, they were actively working to represent it as an O/C matter in order to reward the office bearer.

One thing that also bothers me is the clause in the insurance cover which states that office bearers will be reimbursed in cases which are ‘successfully defended’. This case, apart from not being an EC matter, was also not successfully defended by the office bearer with a court undertaking being signed yet the O/C regards it as closed.

Fraud has taken place here, the insurance company have accepted the incorrect correspondence from the office bearer, paid the approx $1600 and closed the file.  They have awarded somone for an admitted assault on an owner.  It is the function of the FOS to open these matters and look into it and have it resolved fairly.  It is not the amount but the principle involved. The law has been broken on several occasions over this issue and the EC and office bearer have the proxies to cover their tracks. Not acceptable.

How do I word the FOS letter to ensure they look into this?

[HappyNow]

Havent seen any feedback on this question.  Is there a loophole in the Office Bearers Liability Insurance?

[HappyNow]

Ok we had our EGM last night and you were right, it was all stacked very neatly by the Chairman who had everyone’s vote due to all the favours he has dished out.

I have another question though. As a result of the ‘SlapShot’ incident, the person doing the slapping did not take kindly to me distributing a copy of the Court Transcript and her signed undertaking to the court and has since phoned the police stating she feels ‘harassed’.  They came knocking on my door as I mentioned in a previous post and I advised them that this was the only way of letting all owners be aware of what had transpired as she had misrepresented her claim to the Owners Corporation Liability Insurance. The Chairman last night read out a ‘police report’ which stated a number of things.  On phoning the police station involved, they advised me they are VERY aware of the ‘slapper’, that they have been called out a number of times to see her. I asked for a copy of this ‘letter’ that was read out at the EGM by the Chairman and the lovely police person asked for an incident number.  I did not have an incident number as no statement was taken down from me. The police person then did a search and said there was no incident listed except for mine in 2010.  Could I ask what my legal position is now please?. If there is no incident listed, I cannot get a copy of the letter the Chairman read out to everyone. What is my comeback to the Chairman regarding this? I am feeling harassed as perhaps a ‘fabricated’ document has been read out at an open EGM.  I have nothing to hide but I do want to know what my legal rights are now regarding this?

[HappyNow]

We have the same problem in our complex.  One Chairman who rules along with his wife as Secretary and their best friends on the EC.  It has been like this for 2 years now and the other Owners in the complex do not seem to be concerned.  They think that because this man says he was a builder – he will look after them, however, he was only ever an estimator and has made a botch of our large insurance claim for water seepage and resultant paint damage.  He has all the proxies because he has given his ‘friends’ in the complex favours so he sits pretty.  You can see he has no interest in the other owners but is only out to look after himself.  There is a survey on Dept of Fair Trading at the moment which you may like to complete.  I have suggested that no EC can sit for more than 2 years with the same people and after this time, they must stand down and be replaced with fresh members. Members should also have a police check done as many of these people are in control of many thousands in levies per year and not to mention most of these properties are worth millions of dollars.  There must be some accountability. We have two owners very keen to get on the EC to see that things are done correctly but are never elected as that would mean loss of control for the current incumbents.  I think a lot has to be considered regarding the control these members have.  Something does not sit right with me regarding this.  I am sure there are many complexes which are run quite legitimately however, Owners are being asked to put a lot of faith in inexperienced people.  I empathise with you and look forward to others feedback. 

[HappyNow]

Yes, I will invest in some good sticky tape!

Here is one of the other agenda items to be voted on:

Acceptable Use Police:  The aim of the acceptable use policy is to ensure that the use of all community noticboards in the complex is a positive experience for all users and residents.  Posting Must:  Repect the privacy of others, be relevant, not falsely represent the views of any other person or seek to impersonate another person, not be abuse or threatening to others,not disclose personal information of others, not include defamatory or lebellous comments – including reading and then adding to material of which you are not the author, not use obscene hateful, insulting, provocative or offensive language. Not include material that infignes the copyright of other intellectual property rights of others, not be multiple versions of the same information, not be embarrassing or harassing in nature (sexually or otherwise) to another person, not display or otherwise make available any material which is abusive, sexist, racist or otherwise illegal. That is to say: Not posting anything that racially or religiously vilifies others (see the Human Rights Commision website for more information), incites, induces, aids, assists, promotes, cuases, instructs or permits violence, discrimination, harassment, victimisation or hatred towards others, or is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate others particularly on the basis of their sex, gender identiy, race colour, descent, national origigin, religion, ethnicity, age, sexuality or any disability.

  For all of this, no mention of telling the truth which is what the EC have been most guilty of

[Author]

Replies