[TrulEConcerned]

@newb

Thanks for the reply. Good info you supplied.

[TrulEConcerned]

@PJ

Newb is correct when he/she wrote about commissions. These are often included in strata agreements with agents on the understanding that they offset the alleged “low contract price” offered by the agent to manage the strata scheme. Newb is also right claiming that such commissions must be declared and are not always taken by agents.

Good for newb getting a better deal and saving 17%, which could be seen as the strata scheme pocketing  the commission instead of the agent. Newb should watch out for a possible forthcoming hike in the agent’s management fee as this trough has been removed from his snout.

Some years ago I tried to place the same strata insurance cover directly with the insurer but was politely knocked back. The insurer said that her firm only deals with brokers or reps, such as strata agents. It was made as clear as a bell that no matter who places the insurance, eg a broker or strata agent, the commission “sweetener” will not change.

[TrulEConcerned]

@ziggy

Re: Fobs being used by two non owners and non residents

Can’t everyone’s fob be reprogrammed? Everyone but the two so-and-sos with a useless fob, that is.

Doing that will leave them in the cold.

Re: Habitual illegal car parkers

I am unsure of all your options, but two things come to my mind:

1. Fine the wrong doers

Ask your friendly local council to issue fines to the trespasser (see https://www.nsw.gov.au/housing-and-construction/strata/living/parking). It would help if you have already taken photos of the illegally parked cars;

or

2. Install hurdles for the wrong doers

That would involve, in each visitor car space, installing a parking bollard, IMHO the “fold down” type makes sense.

These require a key in order to fold down. Installed in each car space, it will prevent anyone parking there who has not folded down the bollard. That is, any illegal parkers.

Owners/residents should be given a key to the bollards.

6 visitor spaces means 6 bollards. Ideally they are keyed the same, every owner/resident will be able to access all visitor spaces in order to allow a visitor to park.

The only downside is that a lot owner would have to leave his/her apartment in order to allow a visitor to park. Not really a hassle when you consider the upside: a car space which if not available to a particular visitor, at least is being used by another legitimate visitor(s).

A quick look online, granted I looked at just one website, reveals a cost from $95 per bollard plus (unspecified $ for) installation.

 

[TrulEConcerned]

@Jimmy

Yes, a Strata Panel (with its duty to inform the parties as to what the law is and is not) is a very good option for lot owners and OCs  especially as it does not close the door on applying to NCAT if a party is so minded.

While you’re on the reform beat, may I suggest another reform that is very much needed I believe: to the complaint process via FT when a lot owner has serious gripes with the conduct os strata agents.

I understand that a lot owner writes to FT, chapter and verse about his/her gripes.

FT  looks into the claim and if one or more parts of it has legs, then FT will take the matter up with the strata agent.

But here is the rub: the lot owner will not be told

* What the strata agent says in reply to the lot owner’s claims as relayed by FT to the agent; and

* If FT takes any compliance action against the strata agent, the lot owner will not be given the details.

Sounds like the legislation is dramatically skewed to the agents.

@propertypaul

I don’t understand why anyone would want to appoint a building manager (as in superintendent?) for more than 5 years as there could be significant changes in that period. It would be in the OC’s interest at the 5 year mark to reconsider re-appointing or not.

As for strata agents, I never understood why OC’s offer terms >3 years.

A 10 year contract – with I assume annual increases – smells fishy.

[TrulEConcerned]

Further to the good comments by S, I suggest that in the first instance, you email the Secretary or agent to ask “when is the AGM to be held as I want to submit a couple of motions”. Getting a time frame from the Secretary or agent will help your planning to make any inquiries you want to eg with contractors etc.

You can plan to investigate the matter all you want before any AGM; speak to whoever you want and research the topic thoroughly, so long as you know when the AGM will be held.

You could also ask the Secretary or agent if they are planning any general meetings before the AGM.

If so, when will that take place and you’ll submit the motions to that meeting instead. I mention this because a cunning committee could hold a general meeting sooner than you think to vote on a (possibly expensive and controversial) proposal or a quote. This will disadvantage those owners who thought they had time before the next AGM to investigate all the possible options available to them and to robustly discuss those options amongst themselves and seek clarification in writing from the agent or committee well before the vote.

In my experience, an AGM (in the context of asset renewal) often lists an issue with 2 often expensive quotes using the “Yes Minister” tactic: there’s the quote they want you to pick and another quote that will be described at the AGM as “unreasonable” or “deficient” in one way or another. They’ll make it seem like it’s “courageous” to opt for the “deficient” quote.

Such tactics leave no time to look too deeply at the quote, who it benefits most, the contractor’s track record, the installment calendar (in the case of a special levy) etc.

A cunning committee may spring an AGM on you with little notice and you must avoid being caught out like that. Get on the front foot asap.

Good luck.

[TrulEConcerned]

@Jimmy

Thanks for the very good points.

Assembling the papers to seek compulsory strata management makes me wonder what possesses some folk to run a scheme so opaquely, so willy-nilly,  that an application like mine is the only avenue left for those whose snout isn’t in the trough and actually want the OC do do what the SSMA demands they do.

After all, if I heard correctly that a compulsory manager when conforming to the SSMA can spend without constraint on a range of matters including, upkeep of the scheme (doing so with no tenders, no economising etc), then (a) more matters will I bet be repaired and maintained than the current committee bothers to address and (b) the scheme’s expenses will invariably rise (who knows by how much) and in turn levies perhaps may also increase.

A compulsory agent who will usher in higher expenses and possibly higher levies. Both of these are direct results of the committee’s stubborn refusal to be transparent in their operations. The committee must think they can defeat such an application to NCAT because, after all, the result of such an appointment will prove to cost all owners including the current committee a very pretty penny indeed.

[TrulEConcerned]

@Jimmy

I agree. If NCAT is shown a pattern of behaviour that can best be described as a “dysfunction” and is chronic, then nothing short of wholesale sacking of the current arrangements (ie SC and current strata agent) and appointing a compulsory strata to address the dysfunction is the fairest response by NCAT to the problems.

[TrulEConcerned]

@Kaindub wrote

The other owners will usually oppose the appointment of a compulsory strata manager, and would not come prepared with an alternate.

This sounds true, but in my case the Sec hired the current agent and seems close to him, so I expect the Sec to pony up to NCAT a quote from the current agent, not to mention NCAT may have its own list of possible agents.

So the disaffected owner gets to choose the compulsory strata manager. If it was me, I’d make sure thst manager was responsible.

I have a quote from a previous agent, who I found to be, like other agents, in the pocket of the strata committee. So was he “responsible”? I guess to the strata committee he was.

I have not met a “responsible” (to all owners) agent. While I have not had problems with many agents, because I don’t deal with them, I know that in every strata I am involved in someone has an issues, at times a major issue with the strata agent and I cannot tell if the respective lot owner complaint against the agent is justified, so cannot identify a “responsible” agent.

Having said that, I spoke to a strata manager about compulsory appointment. He said that firstly, their fees for such an appointment were several times the normal fee due to the amount of work and responsibilities.

The high fee you refer to may be when all charges are considered. The “sticker” or “base” price for the appointment that I am considering is a couple of hundred dollars above the “sticker” or “base” price of the current management agreement. I told the possible compulsory agent of the current fees we are paying. I have not waded into the 30 pages of T&Cs of the possible compulsory agent’s paperwork to estimate the “all up” cost. I can guess that every agent whose name comes forward as willing to take this job on will have similar detailed T&Cs, skewed, I’d wager to the agent’s favour.

You raise the issue of “the amount of work and responsibilities”. In big stratas I agree with you, but in this case of this small strata, there  are occasional R&M issues but nothing that requires “much work” or keeping an eagle eye out by anyone.

he looks to get the maintenance jobs done, but not necessarily at the lowest cost ie the work goes to their roster of tradies.

I agree. Sounds likely.

I don’t believe that a compulsory strata manager would line their pockets, but since there is no committee to question them, the owners don’t get the cheapest prices.

Again I agree.

Thanks.

[TrulEConcerned]

Welcome to my world. I am involved in a few stratas with one having the same two folk in place for 30 years.

A few things come to mind when I read your posting:

1. 1. Any motion you suggest, to have long lasting effect requires majority support at an AGM and that such a motion will not be reversed at a subsequent AGM. So, in my experience (in several stratas),  limiting the tenure of individuals as you propose or by any other means to my knowledge is not possible;
   2. Changing the number of people on a committee say by adding people to a committee by asking the Tribunal, NCAT, to do so is not within the powers of NCAT. I know this because I tried this and failed; and
   3. What is possible is that you could apply to NCAT – claiming the scheme is dysfunctional – with evidence that the committee as it is has not served the owners well. Ensure you have PROOF of the wrong doings that have transpired eg committee members lining their own pockets or attending to (common property) repairs that benefit them or their mates or billing the Owners’ Corp for matters that belong to individual lot owners and how this has been to the disadvantage of non committee members; and
   4. NCAT, when confronted with (3) above, may agree with you that it is dysfunctional and that a compulsory strata manager should be appointed. That means that the committee is sacked and a new agent will run the place without consulting any committee member or for that matter any owner. Note for this to occur you MUST include in your application that you seek an ORDER for compulsory strata management. For more on that part of the Act, Google
      

      STRATA SCHEMES MANAGEMENT ACT 2015 – SECT 237

      Best of luck.

[TrulEConcerned]

Just my 2cents…you write that you engaged a lawyer. In my experience if one hires a lawyer, he/she must be focused on strata law and not be a “general” or “suburban” lawyer.

I see that this website is sponsored by a strata law firm. If you’re sure you want a lawyer, why not seek their advice?

 

[TrulEConcerned]

@strata survivor and @reddant
In my experience earlier this year at NCAT about a dysfunctional OC where SC members were dipping into the trust fund for their benefit and not attending to common property repairs, I learned that NCAT is loathe to condemn a strata scheme to a compulsory strata manager (CSM) because that takes ALL decisions out of the hands of SC members, both the good and the shifty members.

That said, if you have enough evidence eg financial statements or emails that indicates very poor behaviour, then NCAT could be swayed to order a CSM.

Note: (a) you hint at including motions or minutes of meetings to bolster your allegations of bullying. I very much doubt any secretary or strata agent will include anything that shows him/her in a bad light. Furthermore, minutes are just to record what was decided, NOT what transpired ahead of a decision being made (ie the argy bargy etc) and (b) if you’re far dinkum on CSM, long before going to NCAT go and obtain a quote or two from real estate agents for this task. Usually these engagements are not cheap and often in the first instance they are limited to one year. Hopefully in a year the strata scheme is capable of operating with less dysfunction. Attaching a quote to your NCAT application will help you understand what’s involved and you’ll be able to compare it to the recommended agent NCAT may suggest to you.

@Jimmy
You’re correct. NCAT seems to care about dodgy behaviour, as in the examples you listed and not about what was said at meetings and at what volume unless serious ramifications ensure eg bleeding the trust fund rey. Even so, it is likely that NCAT will give the offenders another chance to behave as is expected of them under the Act before tossing the scheme towards CSM. If they/when the committee subsequently fails, THEN it is likley that NCAT will place the scheme in CSM. This of course requires a fresh NCAT application by those trying to hold the committee accountable, another fee and another hearing date.

[TrulEConcerned]

I agree with Sir Humphrey when he writes that both OCs should claim against their insurer (who presumably will hound the car driver’s insurer).

That said, the following should help you (based on a detailed discussion I had a couple of years ago with a very capable Chairwoman of a strata scheme):

(a) The law that governs this is the Dividing Fences Act
(b) Step 1 (after neighbourly discussions get you nowhere) involves serving a FENCING NOTICE on your neighbour

Go to

https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au

In the SEARCH BOX type
Fencing notice step by step guide

This will reveal in  detail what you need to do.

(c) Step 2 (if/when Step 1 fails) involves a FENCING ORDER
At the above website, in the SEARCH BOX type
Applying for a fencing order

An application for a FENCING ORDER can be made at NCAT or the local court.

The SEARCH results will offer details about both options (via NCAT and local court)

The above websites are very informative. Good luck to you.

In the interest of self education, it cannot hurt you to ask your insurer if, assuming you make a claim (regardless of what your neighbour does), will you (our insurer) pursue the car driver’s insurer for this loss?

* Note I tried to include the full, direct, URLs for both fencing notice and order, but I was unsuccessful in

submitting it online.

[TrulEConcerned]

1. You could look at the annual accounts – submitted to owners with the agenda for the AGM – and keep an eagle eye out for an insurance line item. That should reveal the premium paid and often but not always, the insurer’s name.

(a) You could then ask the agent for a copy of the insurance certificate; which would include the insurer’s name and you strata’s policy number.

(b) You then call the insurer and ask all your questions. Remember to ask also for a copy of the PDS (Policy Disclosure Statement) which lists all the terms of the policy.

2. If the above does not answer your queries, then look closely at the AGM Agenda and Minutes.

Often it is something along the lines of: 2 (or more) quotes to be obtained and strata mgr is authorised to insure the strata etc.

If so, you could first ask the strata committee and then the agent

(a) To see the quotes received and

(b) To be informed as to which insurer was chosen and why

Many agents has an online portal for each strata where common documents eg by laws, insurance certificates etc are deposited and are available for owners to view at will. If this is the case, you should have been provided with a password to access it.

[TrulEConcerned]

Thanks for the reply.

The work performed by the SC member is NOT at arm’s length.

There are no documents referring to the work being needed BEFORE it is allegedly done; no quotes supplied to the SC let alone the OC; no evidence that  work was done and if done, to what level of competence? All we have are invoices from the committee member, paid by the agent and approved by the SC a year AFTER pmt was made. And only after I queried the pmts when I looked at the accounts. I understood that the OC is the party to approve not the SC and that any approval must occur BEFORE pmt is made.

You suggest the AGM.

The AGM is an identical forum to a SC meeting in how it operates. Small strata, same committee members, they hold one proxy (of a hospitalised gentleman) and hence have a majority. Sometimes they have more than one proxy in their paws.

Interestingly, one owner yesterday declined to give them her proxy and did not attend the meeting.

[TrulEConcerned]

Your point of an agent’s competency sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, I do not think your definition of “competency” or mine or for that matter, Jimmy’s is key.

For an allegation to have legs, what is key is whether an agent has breached the terms of his/her license and/or the condition(s) of the Act(s) under which he/she operates.

Some months ago I sought mediation against an agent as I felt the strata agent was breaching the Act under which his conduct is governed. I think it is the Stock & Stations Act. I alleged he was not acting “honestly”. The Act requires such behaviour.

My application was rejected by “Strata Mediation” (hence it never got aired in Mediation let alone getting anywhere near NCAT) because strata mediation said that in my situation “the agent merely did as he was told by those who run the committee and if there is any blame to go around, he is not liable”.

In my experience – for what it’s worth – for blame to be assigned to an agent he/she must be breaching an Act  in a manner other than acting at the behest of or under the instructions of the strata committee or OC. That is to say, an alleged breach by an agent when acting as he is instructed would seem to absolve the agent of liability. The liability if it exists, lies at the feet of the OC. This would require an application (by you) for Mediation against the OC or against the Strata Committee or against the Strata Committee members (personally).

A separate issue you raise – which I believe has merit – is whether you consider the agent’s legislated seemingly “get out of jail free” card to be a slap in the face to lot owners and that the relevant act(s) regulating an agent’s conduct be renovated by holding an agent to a far, far higher standard, with significant penalties to be imposed for breaches.

 

[Author]

Replies