[pedant]

Since my last post I have done quite a lot of research on this fee.  

After a delay the Strata manager of our scheme provided a copy of the letter from PICA (who own a large number of strata management agencies) which basically says that they are charging owners corporations for the cost of them upgrading their systems to comply with the new legislation.  They imply that the agency agreement allows them to charge this fee and it will be “included in your next financial statement”.  No approval required.  A legal opinion of the agency agreements appears to consider this is no legal.

The PICA website states they have over 220,000 lots under management.  I will let you do the maths on how much revenue this will generate.  The management of financial records for schemes is just the beginning of what is planned and when they confirm the system works they plan is to try and on sell to unaffiliated companies.

The secretary of our scheme only “vaguely recalled” receiving the letter and felt the cost would result in “economies of scale” (whatever he thinks that means).

Does no one query what our strata managers are billing us for?  The only people who see this correspondence are committee members.  

Would mere mortals who are just owners object if they were aware of this fee?  

[pedant]

This topic is also currently appearing on the OCN forum.

My 16 block unit in NSW is also being charged a fee of $561 (including GST) without any notification to residents.

The PICA group in conjunction with Urbanise is currently developing a cloud based management system which it intends to implement for all PICA companies.  It also intends to sell the technology to other strata management companies.

Could this be part of the reason for the additional fee and is it legal to add this to management fees without notification.  There is nothing in our maanagement agreement that appears to cover the fee?

[pedant]

Hi Trevor / Jimmy

Thanks for the post as it highlights the difference between the 1996 and 2015 Acts.

1996 states

(2) An executive committee of a strata scheme that is not a large strata scheme must give notice of its intention to hold a meeting at least 72 hours before the time fixed for the meeting:

(a) by displaying the notice on the notice board, or

(b) if the owners corporation is not required by the by-laws to maintain a notice board, by giving written notice (which may be done by electronic means) to each owner and executive committee member.

I hadn’t realised that from 30/11/16 there was no reference to the bylaws so if there is a noticeboard it can just post on the board and not given directly to the owners.  Is this how you read it?

[pedant]

Thanks Cosmo

As suggested I have now lodged a “complaint” with ASIC and will await their response.  Our Strata Manager requested a reply from the company concerned and it doesn’t agree wth any of the information from official sites. BUT they are happy with the response so at present business as usual.

Neither our committee of the strata manager seem to have any interest in the companies they deal with and accept everything at face value.

Will post again after I get a formal response from ASIC.

[pedant]

Thanks Jimmy. 

Since posting this the EC has backed down and will now be putting it on the agenda for AGM in November. Time will tell if I can convince enough owners to attend. The meeting is set for before the introduction of new legislation so proxy farming will again occur.

I will use your advice to try and sway the other owners.

[pedant]

Thanks Jimmy I appreciate your input.

The EC member who has generously proposed the foyer upgrade is insistent that he is accepting the advice of our strata manager that “furnishings” do not require any owner participation and can be decided by a “paper vote”.

My understanding of the legislation is that the EC can “repair and maintain” common property but need owner approval to “improve and enhance” . I am being pedantic because the EC have no understanding of what can and can’t be done legally and don’t follow any rules.  

I agree a by-law would solve the problem but convincing them is not likely to succeed as everything is done by email and i am sick of arguing. The donor has drafted an agreement which he intends to send to EC members for a vote.

There are 5 members of which only 2 make the decisions.  Until October last year when I was elected there were only 3 EC members who held “informal meetings” and approved spending on multiple large projects.  There were never any meeting notices or minutes and the AGM notes had no explanation.  The Sinking Fund after 8 years had $12,000 but at the end of this financial year had $32,000. At least $8000 of this has been spent since 1/9/16 on unapproved “improvements.

Welcome to strata world where anything goes.

Do you think it is unreasonable to wait until our AGM in the next month or so to advise owner’s of what’s proposed?

Regards 

[pedant]

Thanks for your rather flippant reply but it is a bit more complex than that.

There are actually 5 EC members of which 2 are the Secretary, Chairman & Treasurer.  These 2 run the show and bypass the legislation for major decisions.  and for 5 years all meetings and decisions have been “informal”.

In relation to the current issue they will have $7000 plus donated on the understanding that the donor makes the decision on what will put in the foyer. A binding agreement will be signed with the interior decorator and the email to EC members states the donor will make “the final decision on the choice of furniture items”  In addition he is asking for donations in cash or kind from other EC members but not providing any plans.

This is a very formal lot who live here and without any idea of what is actually being proposed it may well not be to everybody’s taste.  The “agreement suggests that furniture becomes the property of the owners corporation who will be responsible for maintaining and insuring against theft.

From a large bare marble foyer to whatever is a bit more than plonking a table and  few plants down and seeing what happens.  If a minimum of $7000 is being spent it requires input from all owners but the plan is to vote then tell owners “as a matter of courtesy” after the deed is done.

I would really appreciate a serious reply re S65A as I would welcome an update but think it should be by consensus.

Thanks

[Author]

Replies